Roman 
Catholicism 



In 

thdiqht 

ofthairoipn 

5cri(><urc5 

and 
Auihoriim 



BijH.m.Riqqle 




V <' / »» ' 
Book ^ 



Cop}TightiN^_ 



COEWIIGHT DEPOSIT. 



Roman Catholicism 

in the Light of Their Own Scrip- 
tures and Authorities 






By 



RIGGLE 



GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY 

Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. 



.^^ 



^"^V 



Copyright, 1917, 
By Gospel Trumpet Company 



ir 



3£C 13 131? 
©CI.A477991 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Introduction 7 

Origin of the Church of God 17 

Is the Church of Rome the Primitive Church? 22 
The Primitive Church and the Church of 

Rome Compared 23 

Humble Equality of the Primitive Ministry 35 

How the Papacy Rose 45 

Supremacy of the Pope. , 50 

Rome's Claim to Infallibility 57 

Is Peter the Foundation? 65 

Was Peter Ever Bishop of Rome? - 77 

Is the Church of Rome the True Catholic 

Church ? ^ 90 

The Unity of the Church of Rome 96 

Infant Damnation , „ 106 

Transubstantiation 109 

Mass, as Observed in the Roman Catholic 

Church 123 

Idolatrous Worship 129 

Penance — Absolution — Auricular Confession. 137 

The Doctrine of Purgatory. „ 150 

The Gospel to the Dead 157 

The Church of Rome Described in Daniel's 

Prophecy 161 

The Papacy Portrayed in the Revelation 165 

Babylon the Great 172 

The Call to Leave Babylon 179 



INTRODUCTION 

What is contained in the following pages has 
been written in a spirit of Christian love and 
courtesy toward the millions of Roman Catholic 
friends in all parts of the world. I grant that 
the majority of the worshipers and devotees of 
the Church of Rome are as zealous, earnest, and 
sincere as any people on earth. When it comes 
to the strict observance of church doctrines and 
traditions, I believe they rank first among all 
denominations. But sincerity alone is no proof 
of orthodoxy. No one will question the fact 
that millions of Mohammedan worshipers are 
honest in their convictions as to what is right. 
The same may be said also of pagan worshipers. 
But we who stand in the light of Christianity 
know that they are wrong and deceived. 

Truth and error are opposites. The truth 
alone can save. Light and darkness can not 
exist in the same place at the same time. The 
only safe rule is to keep our hearts open to 
the truth, always ready to receive the light of 
God. This sometimes has to be done at the cost 
of traditions and teaching that we may have 
imbibed in childhood. I am well aware that it is 
7 



8 Roman CatJioUcism 

not so easy to cast away those teachings that 
we received at Mother's knee. The religious be- 
liefs of our fathers and mothers holds a sacred 
place in our hearts, and our reverence for them 
makes it hard to give them up. Paul was 
brought face to face with this same problem in 
his own life. From childhood he was catechized 
in the Jewish religion. He was a member of the 
strictest sect — the Pharisees. He says that he 
profited in that religion "above many of his 
fellows." As touching the righteousness of the 
law, he was blameless. And yet with all this, he 
finally woke up to the fact that he was lost and 
fightmg against God. What an example he sets 
before us, willingly discarding the traditions of 
his fathers, forsaking his sect, and embracing 
the true religion of Jesus Christ in all its pur- 
it}^ Of course, in doing so he suffered loss. 
He says, "The things that were gain to me, 
the same I have counted loss for Christ. Fur- 
thermore I count all things but loss for the ex- 
cellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord ; for 
whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and 
count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ" 
(Phil. 3:7, 8). 

To our Catholic friends, I wish further to 
state that I have not written this book from the 
Protestant point of view, neither have I quoted 



Introduction 9 

Protestant authors in order to set forth Romish 
doctrines and standards. No Protestant sect 
is the orthodox church any more than is the 
Church of Rome. I have written from the 
standpoint of pure, primitive Christianity, as 
revealed in the New Testament. I have written 
as a representative of the divine ecclesia, the 
pure Church of God, which has Christ as its 
true, and only, living head and includes in its 
membership all the redeemed in heaven and in 
earth. 

In the preparation of this work, the reader 
will observe that I have not followed in the 
rut of those who have inaugurated a tirade of 
abuse against the Church of Rome. 

In this treatise I have quoted from the ac- 
knowledged standard works of the Church of 
Rome. Our Catholic friends, as well as all 
others, will see that this is fair. Mr. Chas. 
Butler, in the book that he wrote in reply to 
Southey's book of the Roman Catholic Church, 
says, "It is most true that the Roman Catholics 
believe the doctrines of their church to be un- 
changeable ; and that it is a tenet of their creed, 
that what their faith ever has been, such it was 
from the beginning, such it now is, and such it 
ever will be." "No doctrine should be ascribed 



10 Roman Catkolicism 

to the Roman Catholics as a body, except such 
as is an article of their faith." 

The articles of faith of the Roman Catholic 
Church are to be found in its accredited creeds, 
catechisms, formularies, and decrees, as pro- 
pounded by popes and General Councils. Thus 
in our setting forth of their doctrines, I have 
adduced the standards which are acknowledged 
by them. In doing this, no one can accuse me of 
mis rep resenting. 

Since Romanists reject the Protestant ver- 
sions of the Bible, I have made all Scripture 
quotations from their own Bible, known as the 
Douay-Rheims Version. The Old Testament of 
this version was first published by the English' 
College at Douay, A. D. 1609; and the New 
Testament, by the English College at Rheims, 
A. D. 1582. This entire Bible is commonly re- 
ferred to as the Douay Version. The particular 
edition from which I quote is published by the 
John Murphy Company, of Baltimore and New 
York, with the approbation of His Eminence 
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Balti- 
more, and that of His Eminence John Cardinal 
Farley, Archbishop of New York. 

But so far as the Scripture quotations in the 
present work are concerned, the differences be- 
tween the Douay Version and the Authorized, 



Introduction 11 

or King James, Version are for the most part 
unimportant. Wherever there is an important 
discrepancy, I have quoted from both versions 
so that the rendering would be familiar to both 
Catholic and Protestant readers. The two great- 
est variations are: 

1. Instead of the term "elder," as in the 
Authorized Version, the Douay Version has 
"priest" or "ancient" in the following texts: 

Acts 14:23 (Douay 14:22); 15:2, 4, 6; 
20:17; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:1. 

2. Instead of "repentance," as in the Author- 
ized Version, the Douay Version has "penance" 
in the following texts : Luke 24 : 47 ; Acts 2 : 38 ; 
20:21. 

So far as the terms "elders" and "priests" 
are concerned, it is evident from the Scripture 
texts cited that the persons thus designated 
were simply Christian ministers ; and their call- 
ings and offices must not be confounded with 
the special functions of the priesthood of later 
ages. In fact, it is certain that the primitive 
church did not specifically designate its min- 
istry as a priesthood, as is implied in the six- 
teenth-century translation of the Rheims Ver- 
sion of the New Testament; for originally all 
the faithful were considered priests, and prayer 
their offering. This is proved by their own 



12 Roman Cafholicism 

Bible. Jesus Christ "hath made us a kingdom, 
and priests to God and his father" (Apoc. 
[Rev.] 1:6). "And hast made us to our God 
a kingdom and priests" (chap. 5:10). "Be 
you also as living stones built up, a spiritual 
house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 
sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" 
(1 Pet. 2:5). 

This idea of a universal priesthood, or a 
"congregation of priests," was a favorite one 
in the ancient church and was advanced as proof 
of the superiority of Christianity, as can be 
seen by consulting Justin Martyr: Trypho, 
CXVI; Irenseus: Haer., Book IV, Chap. VIII, 
sec. 3; TertuUian: De exhortatione castitatis, 
VII ; Origen : On Prayer, XXVIII, 9 ; Augus- 
tine: Civitas Dei, XX, 10, and others. Grad- 
ually, however, the idea of a universal priest- 
hood was lost sight of, and then it became cus- 
tomary to designate bishops and presbyters as 
"priests." Until in the time of Cyprian these 
ministers were represented as "priests" who of- 
fered sacrifices to God and filled a mediatory of- 
fice; and the Old Testament passages pertain- 
ing to the Levitical priesthood were assumed 
to be applicable to them. But there can be no 
particular objection to the rendering "priests," 
in the texts quoted, if we bear in mind the class 



Introduction 13 

of officers in the primitive church referred to 
by the sacred writers. 

In substituting the word "penance" for "re- 
pentance" there is also the same tendency to 
throw back upon the original text of Scripture 
a peculiar tenet and practise of the church of 
later ages. This is shown by the translation of 
the Greek word metanoeo in Matt. 3 : 2 — "Do 
penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" 
— taken in connection with Dr. Challoner's foot- 
note attached : "Z>o penance. Which word, ac- 
cording to the use of the Scriptures and the 
holy fathers, does not only signify repentance 
and amendment of life, but also punishing past 
sins by fasting, and such like penitential exer- 
cises." 

That the meaning of this Greek word is "re- 
pent" is shown by the fact that the Douay trans- 
lators themselves frequently render it thus. For 
example, I cite the following texts : "The time is 
accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at 
hand: repent \^metanoeol^, and believe the gos- 
pel" (Mark 1:15). "If thy brother sin 
against thee, reprove him : and if he do penance 
[metanoeo^i forgive him. And if he sin against 
thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a 
day be converted unto thee, saying, I repent 
\_inetanoeo~\ ; forgive him" (Luke 17: 3, 4). In 



14 Boman CatJiolicism 

this text they were obliged to translate it "re- 
pent" in order to avoid a ridiculous rendering. 
"Be penitent [metanoeo^, therefore, and be con- 
verted, that your sins may be blotted out" 
(Acts 3:19). "I gave her a time that she 
might do penance [metanoeol, and she will not 
repent [metanoeo'] of her fornication" (Apoc. 
[Rev.] 2:21). 

Metanoya, another form of the same Greek 
word, is also translated "penance" in Luke 
24 : 47 : "And that penance and remission of 
sins should be preached in his name, unto all 
nations." However, the Douay translators, 
conscious of the real meaning and force of the 
original word, could not uniformly render it 
thus. "Him hath God exalted with his right 
hand, to be Prince and Savior, to give repent- 
ance [metanoya^ to Israel, and remission of 
sins" (Acts 5:31). "God then hath also to 
the Gentiles given repentance [metanoya'j unto 
life" (Acts 11 : 18). "If peradventure God may 
give them repentance [metanoya'] to know the 
truth" (2 Tim. 2: 25). "He found no place of 
repentance [metanoyay^ (Heb. 12:17). 

It is an evident fact, and one well known to 
these translators, that "penance" does not ex- 
press the real force of the original Greek word, 
which signifies a change of character^ a per- 



Introduction 15 

Tnanent alteration of the disposition and habits. 
Furthermore, in the teaching of Christ and of 
his apostles there is nothing agreeable to the 
later practise of performing certain works of 
penance in order to receive forgiveness. That 
practise grew up by degrees during the apos- 
tasy. It was first applied to those who, after 
having fallen away and brought scandal upon 
the church, desired to be readmitted into fel- 
lowship. 

In the preparation of this work, I have made 
a few choice selections from Delineation of 
Roman Catholicism, by Rev. Chas. Elliott, D. D. 

With a prayer that the truths contained in 
this little volume may lead some honest souls 
into the light of truth, I remain, 
Yours in Christian love, 

H. M. Riggle. 

Akron, Indiana. December 29, 1915. 



ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH OF GOD 

The New Testament church is a divine insti- 
tution. Her inception was coeval in the mind 
of God with that of the plan of salvation. Her 
origin, being the result of redemption, was in- 
separable from it. This beautiful church, re- 
deemed through the blood of the Lamb, stood 
before the Father's mind parallel with the gift 
of his Son. God cast upon the earth a beauti- 
ful shadow of that holy institution, in the form 
of the temple and all its contents. And after 
"Moses was verily faithful in all his house as a 
servant, for a testimony of those things which 
were to be spoken after," in due time "Christ, 
as a Son over his own house," appeared and 
built this beautiful church of the living God. 
He adorned her foundations and walls with the 
pure gold of his heavenly light, and set them 
with the precious stones of his graces and gifts ; 
he draped her pillars with the robes of his right- 
eousness ; and he shed in her the light of his own 
glory. She is from heaven, "the city of my 
God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out 
of heaven from my God" (Rev. 3: 12). Along 
with Christ her builder, she is the gift of in- 
finite love. 

17 



18 Roman Catholicism 

She is "God's building," chosen of him for his 
own dwelling-place — "built together into an 
habitation of God in the Spirit" (Eph 2:22). 
Here the Lord spreads a continual feast of love 
for all his heaven-born children. She is the 
"true tabernacle" of the present divine testi- 
mony, which *'t1ie Lord hath pitched, and not 
man" (Heb. 8:2). As the house of God, he 
that buildeth all things in her, is God (Heb. 
3 : 4 ) ; as the beloved city, she "hath foundations 
whose builder and maker is God" (Heb. 11 : 10) ; 
as a visible working force, she is a kingdom set 
up by the God of heaven, which shall never be 
destroyed (Dan. 2:44). Her foundation is 
Jesus Christ, the, divine Savior — "for other 
foundation can no man lay, but that which is 
laid; which is Jesus Christ." Her life and 
light is the "eternal spirit," and her creed is 
the pure Word of God. God's church is a "spir- 
itual house," and to her is given the spiritual 
law. All her ordinances and observances are 
divine, and found in the New Testament. 

The government of the Church of God is 
divine, not only in its legislative department, 
but also in its judicial and executive depart- 
ments. "The government is upon his shoulder" 
(Isa. 9:6). "He is the head of the body, the 
church, . . . that in all things he may hold 



Origin of the Church of God 19 

the primacy" (Col. 1:18). "The same God 
who worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12: 6). This is 
truly "the church of God, which he hath pur- 
chased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). 

God, having purchased, founded, and built 
the church, claims in her the exclusive right 
of proprietorship. She is not, then, "our 
church," the Church of Rome, or any Protestant 
sect, but "God's building," divinely owned ; and 
"his glory he will not give to another." Jesus 
himself said, "Upon this rock i will build my 
CHURCH, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it" (Matt. 16: 18). 

From the foregoing we learn that the New 
Testament church was built by Christ; that 
he built but one church; that this one church, 
which he denominates "my church," belongs ex- 
clusively to him ; and that it shall stand forever. 

The work of organizing and establishing this 
church began under the labors of John the Bap- 
tist, and was continued under the personal min- 
istry of Christ. From the days of John "men 
pressed into the kingdom." But during that 
time there was a lapping-over of dispensations. 
The law was still in force, while the principles 
of the gospel and the truths of the New Testa- 
ment were being introduced and taught. At 
the death of Christ, the law dispensation prop- 



20 Roman CatJiolicism 

erly ended and the gospel fully came into force. 
The question arises, At what particular time 
was the New Testament church fully organized 
as a distinct institution, a visible, living, mov- 
ing, working force? when were the words of 
Jesus strictly fulfilled wherein he said, "I will 
build my church"? 

By a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 12 it 
will be seen that the work of organizing the 
church, forming it into due parts and furnish- 
ing it with organs, belongs to the Spirit. Just 
such a work was fully accomplished on the day 
of Pentecost, when the gift of the Holy Ghost 
was poured out upon the one hundred and 
twenty believers who were assembled in Jeru- 
salem. They began to speak forth the wonder- 
ful works of God, "as the Spirit gave them to 
speak." Under the inspiration of the Holy 
Ghost the g'ospel was preached, which re- 
sulted in the conversion of three thousand souls. 
The rite of baptism was administered to these 
converts. "And there were added in that day 
about three thousand souls. And they were 
persevering in the doctrine of the apostles." 
"And all they that believed were together." 
From this time on, it is said, "The Lord in- 
creased daily together such as should be saved." 



Origin of the Church of God 21 

"the loed added to the church daily such as 
should be saved." See Acts 2. 

Thus the first Christian church was planted 
at Jerusalem. This took place, it is supposed, 
in the year A. D. 33. 

The Church of Rome has always claimed to 
be the first church. Even many Protestants be- 
lieve her to be the first. But this claim is dis- 
proved by the clear testimony of the Word of 
God that the first Christian church was planted 
in Jerusalem, not in Rome. A careful reading 
of the Acts clearly shows that Jerusalem was 
the headquarters of the work for many years 
after it was fully established. The apostles 
remained there. Even during the great disper- 
sion, when the saints "were all dispersed through 
the regions of Judea and Samaria," because of 
the persecution that arose about Stephen, the 
apostles remained at Jerusalem ( see Acts 8:1; 
11:19-22). The prophet had declared that 
"the law shall go forth from Zion, and the word 
of the Lord from Jerusalem." Jesus said that 
"penance [repentance] and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name unto all na- 
tions, beginning at Jerusalem''; and again, "Ye 
shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in 
all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the utter- 
most part of the earth." When congregations 



22 Boman CatJiolicism 

were raised up in Samaria, Antioch, and other 
cities round about, as the truth spread from 
place to place, it was from Jerusalem that apos- 
tles and ministers were sent forth to establish 
and confirm the brethren. It is not certain who 
carried the gospel to Rome ; perhaps it was the 
"strangers of Rome" who were at Je;rusalem on 
Pentecost (Acts 2: 10). Paul wrote his Epis- 
tle to the Romans about A. D. 58, which was 
about five years before he went there personally. 
But one thing is certain, the primitive congre- 
gation of God's people to whom Paul addressed 
his epistle was vastly different from the pres- 
ent Romish hierarchy, or papacy. 



IS THE CHURCH OF ROME THE PRIMITIVE 
CHURCH? 

On a number of points we hold common 
ground with our Catholic friends. That the 
Christian church is a divine institution, that 
there is but one true church, that there must be 
unity of faith and practise, and that sects and 
schisms are condemned by the Word of God, 
we agree. But the Romanists' claim that they 
are this one exclusive and primitive church is 
without Scriptural warrant. 

In A. D. 32 Jesus said, "I will build my 



Is Rome tJie Primitive Church? 23 

church." In A. D. 33 "the Lord increased 
daily together such as should be saved" (Acts 
2: 47). "The Lord added to the church daily 
such as should be saved," A. V. The fact that 
people were being added to the church proves 
that it was already built. The complete or- 
ganization of the Church of God dates from 
Pentecost. The Church of Rome came into ex- 
istence since A. D. 33, therefore it can not be 
the true primitive church. Thus her claim of 
being the first church and mother of all churches 
is false. I repeat, since the true church dates 
from the day of Pentecost, it follows conclu- 
sively that later institutions (including the 
Church of Rome) can not be that church. It 
is the true; they are the false. It is the real; 
they are substitutes. It is the genuine; they 
must be counterfeits. We, as the saints of the 
Most High, discard the latter and abide in the 
former. We cling to the Church of God and 
reject all sects. Are we not orthodox in so 
doing .f* Who can deny it.^* 



THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH AND THE CHURCH 
OF ROME COMPARED 

The true church is characterized by its re- 
ceiving and retaining the doctrine and faith of 



24 Roman Caiholicism 

the apostles. It is "built upon the foundation of 
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself 
being the chief corner-stone" (Eph. 2:20). 
"And they were persevering in the doctrine of 
the apostles" (Acts 2:42). The church must 
hold the same doctrines which the inspired apos- 
tles and prophets taught, and which are con- 
tained in the Holy Scriptures. This is the test 
laid down by Jesus himself : "My sheep hear my 
voice : . . . and they follow me" ; "A stranger 
they follow not." Hear the apostle on this 
point: "Whosoever revolteth, and continueth 
not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. 
He that continueth in the doctrine, the same 
hath both the Father and the Son." 

It is not, then, the sentiments of fathers, or 
pontiffs, or bishops, or councils, but only those 
of prophets and apostles, that constitute the 
foundation of the church's faith. Its apostolic 
doctrine is the first test of the church, which is 
emphatically entitled "the pillar and ground of 
the truth." If this quality is wanting, nothing 
else can avail. 

The Church of Rome fulfils the prediction of 
Paul that "some shall depart from the faith, 
giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of 
devils" (1 Tim. 4:1). She has departed from 
the apostolic doctrine that salvation is obtain- 



Is Rome the Primitive Church? 25 

able through repentance and faith alone (Mark 
1:15; Rom. 4 : 16 ; Rom. 10 : 9 ; Eph. 2 : 8, 9) 
and substituted a religion of works, including 
indulgences, the confessional, mass, extreme unc- 
tion, purgatory, etc. Not a single one of these 
has any foundation in Holy Writ. 

She has departed from the apostolic doctrine 
of holiness of heart and life (Matt. 5:8; Tit. 
2 : 11, 12 ; Luke 1 : 74, 75 ; 1 John 4 : 17 ; 1 John 
3:3, 6) and substituted a mere external holi- 
ness, which she has restricted to certain orders 
and individuals, such as monks, nuns, sisters of 
charity, prelates, and popes ; thus has come the 
appellation, "His Holiness the Pope." In the 
primitive church all the brethren were holy, be- 
cause they were saved from sin. 

She has departed from the apostolic doctrine 
of a sinless life ( 1 John 3:6, 8, 9 ; 1 John 
5 : 18), and in the following quotations from her 
standard authors acknowledges and teaches that 
her members are full of sin. In fact, a sinless 
life is nowhere taught by the priesthood of 
Rome. 

Moreover, manifest sinners, as well as concealed her- 
etics and infidels, pertain to the external and visible 
church of Christ. . . . The sanctity, such as Christ 
wills to exist in the church in this earth, does not 
exclude wicked men and sinners. — Lieberman: Insti- 
tutiones Theologicae, p. 177. 



26 Roman CatJiolicism 

In the one true and Catholic church of Christ, there 
are not only the imperfect, but also great sinners, and 
that not only concealed, but manifest. — ^Bellarmine: 
De Eccles, C, 9. 

These statements are selected from thousands 
by which it can be shown that the Church of 
Rome has departed from the primitive faith. 
This proves her to be an apostate church, in- 
stead of the primitive Church of God. 

Holiness is a distinguishing feature of the 
true church. Accordingly, we read that "holi- 
ness becometh thine house, O Lord, unto length 
of days" ( Psa. 92 : 5—93 : 5, A. V. ) . The mem- 
bers of this church are called "saints," which 
signifies holy persons, or those who have been 
saved from their sins and who live righteously 
and godly in this present world. It is through 
the new birth that people enter the kingdom, or 
church, of God, and "whosoever is born of God, 
committeth not sin" (1 John 3:9). The 
Church of God is the body of Christ, and the 
mere profession of Christianity makes no one 
a member of Christ. All true members of the 
Church of God are born of God by the Spirit, 
and are therefore the sons of God. Christ is 
the door of this church, and he says, "By me 
if any man enter in, he shall be saved" (John 
10: 9). Of the church in her primitive glory it 
is said, "They were all filled with the Holy 



Is Rome tJie Primitive Church f 27 

Ghost" (Acts 2:4). "And when thej had 
prayed, the place was moved wherein they were 
assembled ; and they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost, and they spake the word of God with 
confidence. And the multitude of believers had 
but one heart and one soul: . . . and great 
grace was in them all" (Acts 4: 31-33). "But 
of the rest no man durst j oin himself unto them ; 
but the people magnified them. And the multi- 
tude of men and women who believed in the Lord, 
was more increased" (Acts 5: 13, 14). 

Another picture^ of the ideal primitive church 
is given in Eph. 5 : 25-27 — "Christ also loved 
the church, and delivered himself up for it : that 
he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of 
water in the word of life : that he might present 
to himself a glorious church, not having spot or 
wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should 
be holy, and without blemish." Thus we see 
that the spiritual character of the true Church 
of God is holiness of heart and a sinless life, 
in all its members. 

When we contrast this with the teaching and 
lives of those who constitute the Church of 
Rome, there is no identity. They do not teach 
a Spirit-filled and sinless life, nor do their mem- 
bers claim to practise such. Roman Catholics 



28 ^ Eoman CatJioUcism 

teach that open and notorious sinners, infidels 
and heretics, are members of the church. 

Moreover, manifest sinners, as well as concealed 
heretics and infidel's, pertain to the external and visible 
church of Christ. Sinners, with other infidels, are 
joined in the profession of the same Christian faith, 
and communion of the same sacraments, and are held 
under the same government of legitimate pastors. 
Therefore, they have all things which are' required for 
a member of the church. — Lieberman. 

The sanctity, such as Christ wills to exist in his 
church in this earth, does not exclude wicked men and 
sinners. — Id. 

The church is constituted not only of the perfect and 
just, but it hath mixed the wicked and sinners, even 
notable and wicked sinners. — ^Bailly. 

Open transgressors are members of the church. — 
Dens. 

In the one true and Catholic Church of Christ, there 
are not only the imperfect, but also great sinners, and 
that not only concealed, but manifest. — Bellarmine. 

If wicked members were not true members of the 
church, a wicked pope could not be the head of the 
church. — Id. 

I deem the foregoing quotations from stand- 
ard authors in the Church of Rome sufficient 
proof that it has no identity whatever with the 
primitive Church of God. From their own Hps 
we judge them. The most flagrant transgress- 
ors, such as drunkards, swearers, adulterers, 
yes, "great sinners," wicked men, "not only 
concealed, but manifest" — "open transgressors" 
— are acknowledged members of the Roman 



Is Rome tlie Primitive Church? 29 

church. Such may live and die accredited mem- 
bers of their church. In no other point does 
the apostasy of the Church of Rome appear 
more striking and evident than in her permit- 
ting the wicked to remain church-members. Since 
Jesus said that a bad tree can not bring forth 
good fruit, and that a tree is known by its 
fruit, the Church of Rome must be a corrupt 
tree. To quote their own authors: 

Many popes were men of the most abandoned lives. 
Some were magicians; some were noted for sedition, 
war, and slaughter; for profligacy of manners, for 
avarice and symony. — Gerhard: De Eccles, sec. 263, 
p. 438. 

The cardinals were also noted for pride, luxury, 
avarice, and other crimes. — Id., sec. 264, p. 439. 

The morals of the bishops, priests, and other clergy 
were equally depraved. — Id., p. 440. 

Is this a picture of the New Testament 
church, which Paul declared to be "a glorious 
church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such 
thing; but that it should be holy, and without 
blemish".? Surely in the Church of Rome is 
fulfilled the prediction of Paul that an apostasy, 
or falling away, would come. 

The Church of God is the body of Christ. 
"His body, which is the church" (Col. 1:24). 
"He is the head of the body, the church" (v. 18) . 
"The church, which is his body" (Eph. 1:22, 
23). These texts are conclusive; the church is 



30 Roman CatJiolicism 

Christ's body. This body is composed of all 
the saved. "You are the body of Christ, and 
members of member" (1 Cor. 12:27). All 
Christians belong to the Church of God. You 
can not be a Christian without being a member 
of Christ's body, and this is the church. Thus, 
it includes in its membership every saved man 
in heaven and on earth. Paul denominates it 
"all paternity in heaven and earth" (Eph. 
3:15). "The whole family in heaven and 
earth," A. V. Nothing less than this can be the 
Church of God. Reader, observe well this 
truth. Since the Church of God includes the 
entire host of redeemed souls in heaven and on 
earth, it is not a sect ; it is the whole. 

The Church of Rome, in order to be God's 
church, must include in her membership all 
Christians. In the creed and oath of Pope 
Pius IV, which is a standard document of Ro- 
man Catholic faith. Article 15, is this statement: 
"This true Catholic faith, out of which none can 
be saved, I now freely profess and truly hold," 
etc. This virtually states that all outside of 
the Church of Rome are lost. This, of course, 
would include the hosts of redeemed souls who 
constituted the Church of God before the Church 
of Rome was established, the millions of faith- 
ful souls who lived during the reign of popery 



Is Borne tJie Primitive Chiirchf 31 

and never submitted to the supremacy of the 
Roman bishop, the added millions of Protestants 
who have thrown off the yoke of the papacy, 
and the innumerable company of the redeemed 
in the paradise of God. Yet every one who has 
been saved through the blood of the Lamb is a 
member of Christ's church. Judged by this 
infallible rule, the Romish church can not be 
the church that God established. 

The church is one body ; hence it has but one 
living head. The Scriptures nowhere teach that 
the Pope of Rome is the head of all Christians, 
and of the church, but on the other hand, they 
positively contradict it. "Which he wrought 
in Christ, raising him up from the dead, and 
setting him on his right hand in the heavenly 
places. . . . And he hath subjected all 
things under his feet, and hath made him head 
over all the church, which is his body" (Eph. 
1:20-23). "And he is the head of the body, 
the church . . . that in all things he may 
hold the primacy" (Col. 1 : 18). "Christ is the 
head of the church" (Eph. 5 : 23). None other 
is the "prince of pastors" — "chief Shepherd," 
A. v.— but Christ alone (1 Pet. 5:4). Hence 
the apostolic and primitive church acknowl- 
edged no Roman pontiff as the head of the 
church, but gave this honor to Christ alone, 



32 Roman Cafholicism 

who supplied life and spirit to the entire body 
(Col. 2:19). 

Membership in the Church of God is obtained 
through salvation. Jesus said, "I am the door. 
By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved" 
(John 10:9). "And the Lord increased daily 
together such as should be saved" (Acts 2: 47). 
"And the Lord added to the church daily such 
as should be saved," A. V. "Those that were 
being saved," R. V. "But now hath God set 
the members every one of them in the body as 
it hath pleased him" (1 Cor. 12: 18). "Who 
hath delivered us from the power of darkness, 
and hath translated us into the kingdom of the 
Son of his love" (Col. 1:13). Taking mem- 
bers into the church does not belong to any 
man, but is the work of God. The Lord, not 
Roman priests, added the members to the prim- 
itive church. These were added by their ob- 
taining salvation. Thus we learn that the mo- 
ment an individual is saved, he is a member of 
the Church of God. 

Obtaining salvation makes no one a member 
of the Church of Rome. Millions have been 
saved through the blood of the Lamb who never 
acknowledged the supremacy of the Roman pon- 
tiff. Were a heathen to become sufficiently en- 
lightened to repent and believe on the Lord Je- 



Is Borne the Primitive Church? 33 

sus Christ, he would be saved, and thus made a 
member of the New Testament church. But 
such a one does not become a member of the 
Church of Rome until he has submitted to cer- 
tain external rites and ceremonies, and declared 
his allegiance to the Roman bishop. Thus you 
see there is no identity between the two churches. 

The following is the definition given by Rome 
as to who constitutes a member of their church : 

The church is an assembly of men, united in a 
profession of one and the same Christian faith, and 
in the communion of the same sacraments, under the 
government of their lawful pastors, as especially of 
the Eoman pontiff.— Bellarmine. 

Christian experience and a holy life count lit- 
tle in Rome. A mere profession of faith, ob- 
servance of sacraments, and submission to the 
government of the Pope, are all the essentials 
of membership. How different from the prim- 
itive church ! 

Those who separate themselves from Christ, 
but not from the Pope of Rome, cease to be mem- 
bers of the true church, because Christ, not 
the Pope, is the head of the church. "If any 
one abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch" 
(John 15:6). "Every branch in me, that bear- 
eth not fruit, he will take away" (John 15: 2). 
The Lord said to Moses, "He that hath sinned 
against me, him will I strike out of my book"; 



34 Roman Catholicism 

so the moment people sin against God, they 
cease to be members of his church. Not so with 
the Church of Rome. Their standard author- 
ities acknowledge her to be filled with "mani- 
fest and great sinners, heretics and infidels." 
From the Pope down, none of them claim to live 
above sin. This is why they have instituted their 
very sacraments and the confessional, and why 
they teach a future purgatory. John says, "He 
that committeth sin is of the devil" (1 John 
3:8). Since the Church of Rome is a church 
of sinners, and harbors within her fold "wicked 
men, heretics, and infidels," judged by the 
standard of eternal truth she can not be the 
Lord's church. Her members, from the Pope 
down, they themselves acknowledge to be wicked 
men and sinners. The Church of Rome pro- 
nounces outside of the church of Christ all who 
are not subject to the See of Rome. It is a 
well-known fact that she never expells wicked 
or profane persons from her pale, provided they 
acknowledge the authority of the Pope and 
the clergy. And should the most pious person 
in the world deny clerical authority, in Rome's 
sense of it, he must be expelled from the Romish 
church. Many have separated themselves from 
the Pope who were, nevertheless, members of 
the true church. 



Humble Equality of Primitive Ministry 35 

HUMBLE EQUALITY OF THE PRIMITIVE 
MINISTRY 

That the Church of Rome is not the true 
church is also shown by the inequality in rank of 
her priesthood, as compared with the humble 
equality of the primitive ministry. To the first 
ministers Christ said, "Be not ye called Rabbi. 
For one is your Master ; and all you are breth- 
ren" ( Matt. 23:8). "Neither be ye called mas- 
ters; for one is your Master, Christ. He that 
is greatest among you shall be your servant. 
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be hum- 
bled: and he that shall humble himself shall be 
exalted" (Matt. 23:10-12). "And there was 
also a strife amongst them, which of them should 
seem to be the greater. And he said to them: 
The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them ; and 
they that have power over them are called be- 
neficient. But you not so: but he that is the 
greater among you, let him become as the 
younger; and he that is the leader, as he that 
serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth 
at table, or he that serveth.? Is not he that 
sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, 
as he that serveth" (Luke 22: 24-27). 

Oh, what humbleness is here taught! "Ye 
are brethren." "No one among you is higher 
than another or can possibly have from me 



36 Bomcm CatJiolicism 

jurisdiction over the rest. Ye are, in this 
respect, perfectly equal." Christ showed his dis- 
ciples how the Gentiles exalted some above 
others, but said that it should not be so among 
them. 

"The ancients therefore that are among you, 
I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and 
a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a 
partaker of that glory which is to be revealed 
in time to come: feed the flock of God . . . 
neither as lording it over the clergy, but being 
made a pattern of the flock from the heart" 
(1 Pet. 5: 1-3) ; "The elders which are among 
you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a wit- 
ness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a par- 
taker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed 
the flock of God . . . neither as being lords 
over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the 
flock," A. V. The following are extracts from 
Adam Clark's comments on these verses : 

In this place, the term ' ' presbuteros, ' ' elders, or 
presbyters, is the name of an office. They were as 
pastors, or shepherds, of the flock of God, the Christian 
people among whom they lived. They were the same 
as bishops . . . and teachers. . . . That these were 
the same as bishops, the next verse proves. *'Who 
also am an elder," ' ' sum-presbuteros, " a fellow elder, 
one on a level with yourselves. 

''Neither as being lords over God's heritage." Ac- 
cording to him [Peter] there are to be no lords over 



Humble Equality of Primitive Ministry 37 

God's heritage; the bishops and presbyters, who are 
appointed by the head of the church [Christ], are to 
feed the flock; to guide and to defend it; not to fleece 
and waste it: and they are to look for their reward 
in another world, and the approbation of God in their 
consciences. And in humility, self-abasement, self- 
renunciation, and heavenly-mindedness, they are to be 
ensamples, ''tupos," — types — to the flock; molds of a 
heavenly form, into which the spirit and lives of the 
flock may be cast, that they may come out after a 
perfect pattern. We need not ask. Does the church 
that arrogates to itself the exclusive title of catholic, 
and do its supreme pastors, who affect to be the suc- 
cessors of Peter, and the vicars of Jesus Christ, act in 
this way? They are in every sense the reverse of this. 
But we may ask. Do the other churches [meaning the 
Protestant sects], which profess to be reformed from 
the abominations of the above, follow the advice of 
the apostle in their eye? Have they pastors according 
to God 's own heart, who feed them with knowledge and 
understanding (Jer. 3:15)? Do they feed themselves 
and not the flock? Are they lords over the heritage of 
Christ, ruling with a high ecclesiastico-secular hand? 

The above cuts a clear line of distinction be- 
tween the modern lords of Babylon and the hum- 
ble, equal ministry of the early church. The 
apostle Peter placed himself on a common level 
with the local presbyters, and also stated that 
he was a fellow presbyter. In the New Testa- 
ment, "bishop" and "elder" are terms used in- 
terchangeably and applied to the same class of 
officers — the ministers. 

' ' Bishop. ' ' In the primitive church, a spiritual over- 



38 Roman Catholicism 

seer; an elder or presbyter; one who has the pastoral 
care of a church. — Webster. 

The same persons are called elders and presbyters, 
and overseers and bishops. — Scott: Com. 

Till the churches were multiplied [and apostatized], 
the bishops and presbyters were the same, — Id. 

Both the Greek and Latin Fathers do, with one 
consent, declare that bishops were called presbyters 
and presbyters bishops in apostolic times, the name 
being then common. — Whitbey. 

It appears that those who are called elders in this 
place [Tit. 1: 5] are the same as those termed bishops 
in verse 7. "We have many proofs that bishops and 
elders were of the same order in the apostolic church, 
though afterward they became distinct. — Adam Clark. 

The rulers of the church were called their presbyters 
or bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testa- 
ment, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men. 
. . . Let no one confound the bishops of this prim- 
itive and golden period of the church with those of 
whom we read in the following ages. For, though « 
they were both distinguished by the same name, yet 
they differed extremely, and that in many respects. — 
Mosheim, Vol. I, p. 99. 

It is also true that in the earliest government of the 
first Christian society, that of Jerusalem, not the elders 
only, but the ' ' whole church ' ' were associated with the 
apostles; and it is even certain that the terms ''bishop" 
and ''elder" or "presbyter" were, in the first in- 
stances, and for a short period, sometimes used synon- 
omously, and indiscriminately applied to the same order 
in the ministry. — Waddington: Church History, Part 
I, p. 41. 

The earliest Christian communities appear to have 
been ruled and represented, in the absence of the 
apostle who was their first founder, by their elders, 
who are likewise called bishops, or overseers of the 



Humble Eqwality of Primitive Ministry 39 

church. — Millman: History of Christianity, p. 194. 

To aid them in their work, or to supply their places 
in their absence (Acts 14: 23), the apostles ordained 
rulers in every church, who bore the common name of 
''elders" from their dignity, and of ''bishops" from 
the nature of their ofl&ce. That originally the elders 
were the same as the bishops, we gather with absolute 
certainty from the statements of the New Testament 
and of Clement of Eome, a disciple of the apostles. 
[See his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chaps. 42, 44.] 
The presbyters are expressly called bishops — compare 
[the Greek especially] Acts 20: 17 with verse 28, and 
Tit. 1:5 with verse 7. 2. The office of presbyter is 
described as next to the highest after that of apostle 
(Acts 15:6, 22). Similarly, the elders are represented 
as those to whom alone the rule, the teaching, and the 
care of the church is entrusted (1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Pet. 
5:1, etc.). ... In [several] passages of the New 
Testament and of Clement we read of many bishops in 
one and the same church. In the face of such in- 
dubitable evidence, it is difficult to account for the 
pertinacity with which Romish and Anglican the- 
ologians insist that these two offices had from the first 
been different in name and functions. . . . Even 
Jerome, Augustine, Urban II (1091), and Petrus Lom- 
bardus admit that originally the two had been iden- 
tical. It was reserved for the Council of Trent to 
convert this truth into a heresy. — Kurtz: Church His- 
tory, pp. 67, 68. 

The church was in the beginning a community of 
brethren, guided by a few of the brethren. All Chris- 
tians were priests of the living God, with humble 
pastors as their guides. — D'Aubigne: History of the 
Eeformation, Vol. I, pp. 35, 50. 

To the above we heartily agree. Bishop and 
elder were the same till the "mystery of in- 



40 Roman Cafholicism 

iquity" began to work. The traveling preachers 
were bishops. "For it is written in the book of 
Psalms, Let their habitation become desolate, 
and let there be none to dwell therein. And his 
bishopric let another take" (Acts 1:20). A 
bishopric is the office of a bishop. Judas, then, 
was a bishop, but by transgression he fell. So 
Matthias was chosen to take his bishopric — his 
office of bishop. This proves beyond question 
that all the Twelve were properly called bishops. 
This included Peter and John, who also were 
called elders, or ancients ( 1 Pet. 5 : 1 ; 2 John 
1 ; 3 John 1 ) . So the terms "bishop" and 
"elder" were used interchangeably, and applied 
to all the traveling ministers. All the local 
preachers were bishops. "Paul and Timothy, 
the servants of Jesus Christ; to all the saints 
in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the 
bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1). Thus when 
Paul wrote to the church at Philippi, he ad- 
dressed all the saints, "with the bishops and 
deacons." He did not say with bishops, elders, 
and deacons ; but recognized only two classes 
of officers — bishops and deacons. 

A plurality of priests (elders, A. V., Acts 
14: 23) were ordained in "every church" (Acts 
14:22). Paul terms these elders, "bishops"; 
"bishop" and "elder," then, are the same in 



Humble Equality of Primitive Ministry 41 

Scripture. There were but two classes of of- 
ficers in the church at Philippi: bishops, the 
ministers of the word of truth and overseers of 
the flock; and deacons, the ministers of the 
temporal affairs of the church. To have any- 
thing more than this is apostasy. 

On Phil. 1 : 1 Adam Clark remarks : 

''Bishops and deacons"; the overseers of the Church 
of God, and those who ministered to the poor, and 
preached occasionally. There has been a great deal 
of paper wasted in the inquiry, ''Who is meant by 
'bishops' here, as no place could have more than one 
bishop?" . . . This is the extravagance of trifling. 
I believe no such officer is meant as we now term 
bishop. 

This is clear. Adam Clark readily admits 
that New Testament bishops were only over- 
seers — common preachers. He further states 
that it is a waste of paper and "the extrava- 
gance of trifling" to try to prove that there can 
be only one bishop in an assembly. He under- 
stood that the modern office of bishop was un- 
known in the apostolic church. These are his 
words: "I believe no such officer is meant as 
we now term bishop." 

The very language of Tit. 1 : 4-7 proves that 
priests (elders, A. V.) and bishops were the 
same. "To Titus, my beloved son, according to 
the common faith, grace and peace from God 
the Father and from Christ Jesus our Savior. 



42 Roman CatlwUcism 

For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou 
shouldest set in order the things that are want- 
ing, and ordain priests ["elders," A. V.] in 
every city, as I also appointed thee: if any be 
without crime, the husband of one wife, having 
faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. 
For a bishop must be without crime, as the 
steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, 
not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy 
lucre." Language could not be plainer. Paul 
left Titus in Crete to ordain priests (elders) 
in every city. He says, "If any be without 
crime," "for a bishop must be without crime." 
When Paul sent to Ephesus, he did not call the 
bishop and his presbytery, but simply called 
"the ancients ["elders," A. V.] of the church" 
(Acts 20:17). Then in speaking to these 
men, he says : "Take heed to yourselves, and to 
the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath 
placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, 
which he hath purchased with his own blood" 
(Acts 20:28). In this verse those who were 
called "ancients," or "elders," in verse 17 are 
termed "bishops." Paul puts all the ministers 
of the church at Ephesus on a common level — 
bishops ; and this text further proves that there 
were a number of bishops in the Ephesian 
church. When the apostles set churches in 



Humble Equality of Primitive Ministry 43 

order, they did not ordain one bishop and his 
presbytery, but simply "ordained priests [eld- 
ers," A. v.] in every church" (Acts 14:22). 
Paul did not instruct Titus to ordain one bishop 
and a presbytery of elders for his sanhedrin 
in every city in Crete, but left him to simply 
"ordain priests ["elders," A. V.] in every city." 
At Philippi there was no such thing as a sin- 
gle bishop, a lower class called elders, and a 
still lower class called deacons ; but there were 
only two classes of officers — bishops and dea- 
cons (Phil. 1:1). Did the church at Antioch 
send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to con- 
sult the bishop, the apostles, and the elders 
about circumcision ? No ; they simply sent them 
"to Jerusalem unto the apostles and priests 
["elders," A. V.] about this question" (Acts 
15:2). Nothing is said of the bishop. When 
they reached Jerusalem, "they were received by 
the church, and by the apostles and ancients" 
(v. 4). The bishop was left out. Why.? They 
did not have such a high officer over them. 
That church was pure from the mystery of in- 
iquity. "But," says one, "James was a bishop." 
James was an apostle (Gal. 1:19); hence he 
was no more a bishop than was Peter or any 
other of the apostles. Who came together to 
consider the matter.? The bishop (James), the 



44 Bowman Catholicism 

apostles, and the elders ? No ; it does not read 
that way. "And the apostles and ancients ["el- 
ders," A. v.] assembled to consider of this mat- 
ter" (Acts 15:6). No mention is made of a 
bishop presiding in tliis apostolic .assembly. 
Only apostles and ancients (elders) are men- 
tioned. As before proved, all the apostles were 
bishops, and all the ancients, or elders, were 
bishops. The apostles were the traveling elders, 
or bishops, while the others were the local el- 
ders, or bishops. Peter and James spoke in this 
assembly, as they were looked upon by the 
church as "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). But James 
was only an apostle, or elder, in the church at 
Jerusalem. He probably was a senior elder, 
as is inferred from Acts 21 : 18. 

"But," says one, "was not the angel of the 
church at Ephesus a bishop over the rest?" 
(Rev. 2:1). No; for when Paul called the 
ministers together, as recorded in Acts 20, he 
addressed them as bishops. They were all bish- 
ops — overseers. No doubt there was, however, 
one among them who especially ministered the 
word and took the special care of the church 
upon himself; but there was not a bishop who 
had authority over the rest, for they were all on 
the same level. This humble equality of the 
early ministry lasted but a very short time. 



Bow tJie Papacy Arose 45 

HOW THE PAPACY ROSE 

We have already seen the humble equality 
of the apostolic ministry. As the saints began 
to fall away and drift from the primitive faith, 
they lost sight of this humble equality and be- 
gan to exalt men, as seen in Second Thessa- 
lonians. Paul said that the mystery of iniquity 
was already working. The spirit of it was then 
manifest in some persons. In the Third Epistle 
of John it is evident that three elders of the 
church are spoken of ; namely. Gains, Demetrius, 
and Diotrephes. The first two John com- 
mended. They were straight, humble men. But 
Diotrephes loved to have the preeminence among 
them. He no doubt wanted to be a bishop, to 
be higher than the common presbytery. He did 
not want to receive the apostle John (v. 9), for 
he knew that John was against any such exalta- 
tion. But John comforted Gains by saying, 
"If I come, I will advertize his works" (v. 10). 
Here is the first mention in Scripture of one 
man seeking preeminence above the other elders 
in the local assembly — seeking a position over 
the others. This was A. D. 90. Just as soon, 
however, as we pass beyond the sacred writings, 
in the second century, we find a man exalted 
to a higher office — a bishop over the common 



46 Roman Catholicism 

presbyters or elders. This was apostasy al- 
ready at work. 

I will here quote from the Church Fathers to 
show that in their early day one man had been 
already exalted above the rest. Instead of elders 
and deacons, as the New Testament reads, it 
was one bishop, elders, and deafcons — three 
classes of officers instead of two — one over the 
others. 

Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together 
in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing 
also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, 
worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the 
strings are to the harp. — Ignatius to the Ephesians, 
Chap. IV. 

Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, 
through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through 
your worthy presbyters Bassus and ApoUonius, and 
through my fellow servant the deacon Sotio. — Ignatius 
to the Magnesians, Chap. 11. 

There is but one altar for the whole church, and one 
bishop, with the presbytery and deacons. — Ignatius to 
the Philadelphians, Chap. IV. Give heed to the bishop, 
and to the presbytery and deacons. — ^Chap. VII. 

The bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons. — 
Ignatius to Polycarp, Chap. VI. 

These quotations from Ignatius, who wrote 
in the first part of the second century, show 
that at that early date the humble equality of 
the apostolic order was already changed and 
a third office created by exalting in each local 
congregation one man as bishop over the com- 



How the Paxmcy Arose 47 

mon elders, or presbyters. How different are 
the above quotations from the sacred Scrip- 
tures ! At Philippi, Paul addressed the bishops 
and deacons, but Ignatius taught that at the 
time of his writing there was *'one bishop, with 
the presbyters and deacons." When Paul sent 
to Ephesus and called together the local min- 
istry, he called the "ancients [elders] of the 
church"; but when Ignatius wrote, he would 
have had to call the bishop and the elders. 
When Paul left Titus in Crete, he was to or- 
dain priests (elders) in every city; but when 
Ignatius wrote, he would have had to ordain 
"a bishop and elders." Ah, beloved reader, this 
is the working of the "mystery of iniquity." 
It was the first big step toward the man of sin. 
As soon as this third office was created, and in 
each assembly one bishop was set up over the 
elders and the deacons, the next step was to 
confer great honors upon him and to exalt him 
high above all others. Ignatius, in the latter 
part of his ministry, was drunk on this spirit. 

I will again quote: 

As therefore the Lord does nothing without the 
Father, . . . so do ye, neither presbyter, nor dea- 
con, nor layman, do anything without the bishop. — 
Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chap. VII. 

In like manner, let all* reverence the deacons as an 
appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus 



48 Roman Cafholicism 

Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presby- 
ters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the 
apostles. Apart from these there is no church. — 
Ignatius to the Trallians, Chap. III. 

And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ him- 
self. . . . For what is the bishop but one who 
beyond all others possesses all power and authority, 
so far as it is possible for man to possess it, who 
according to his ability has been made an imitator of 
the Christ of God? And what is the presbytery but 
a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the 
bishop?— Chap. VII. 

"Reverence your bishop as Jesus Christ" and 
"do nothing without the bishop" — that is get- 
ting him pretty high. But such was the spirit 
then at work. In the early church, the presby- 
tery was an assembly of ministers. If a number 
of local preachers assembled, they constituted 
a presbytery ; and a gathering of both traveling 
and local elders, as at Jerusalem (Acts 15), 
was properly termed a presbytery; but when 
Ignatius wrote, the presbyters were common el- 
ders who served as counselors and assessors of 
the bishop. Oh, how changed! Humble equal- 
ity was lost sight of. 

Let governors be obedient to Caesar; soldiers, to 
those that command them; deacons, to the presbyters, 
as to high priests; the presbyters, and deacons, and the 
rest of the clergy, together with all the people, and the 
soldiers, and the governors, and Caesar [himself], to 
the bishop. — Ignatius to the Philadelphians, Chap. IV. 

If this was not making great strides toward 



How the Papacy Arose 49 

popery, I can not understand language. The 
bishop was exalted above all "the clergy," even 
above Caesar himself, and this in the second cen- 
tury. Such was the teaching of Ignatius. Sure- 
ly the great apostasy came early. Of course 
the bishop had not, in reality, yet reached such 
a high place, but the people were working hard 
to get him there, and Ignatius' writings show 
that he believed such was the bishop's place. 

Again we quote: 

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus 
Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would 
the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the 
institution of God. Let no man do anything connected 
with the church without the bishop. Let that be deemed 
a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by 
the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. 
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the mul- 
titude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus 
Christ is, there is the Catholic church. It is not law- 
ful* without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate 
a love-feast; but whatever he shall approve of, that 
is also pleasing to God. — Ignatius to the Smyrnasns, 
Chap. VIII. He who honors the bishop has been 
honored by God; he who does anything without the 
knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the 
devil. . . . Nor is there any one in the church 
greater than the bishop. . . . He who honors the 
bishop shall be honored by God. . . . Let the laity 
be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presby- 
ters; the presbyters to the bishops. — Chap. IX. 

If he reckon himself greater than the bishop, he is 
ruined. But it becomes both men and women who 



50 Roman Catholicism 

marry, to form their union with the approval of the 
bishop. — Ignatius to Polycarp, Chap. V. 

Thus we have given a few quotations from 
the early writings to show how soon the humble 
equality of the apostolic ministry was over- 
thrown and man exalted. This kept working 
more and more. The bishop was lifted up higher 
and higher, until about the third century ; then 
a higher office was created. After that date we 
have a class of officers called archbishops — bish- 
ops over other bishops. Sometimes one bishop 
would rule over the bishops of a score of 
churches. This was forming the man of sin. 
In the Church of God there is but one chief 
shepherd, one chief bishop — Christ — but at that 
date there was an exalting of man to this lofty 
position. This kept on working and fomenting, 
man being exalted higher and higher until final- 
ly the pope was elected head of the church — 
so-called. Instead of Christ working all in 
all, in all the members, man-power ruled the 
church. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE 

The following quotations from standard 
Catholic authors set forth their belief in the 
supremacy of the pope: 

St. Thomas afl&rms that the pope, by divine right, 



Supremacy of the Pope 51 

hath spiritual and temporal power, as supreme king of 
the world; so that he can impose taxes on all Chris- 
tians, and destroy towns and cities for the preservation 
of Christianity. — Acquinas: Rule of Princes, as quoted 
by Bellarmine in De Pontiff, V. 5. 

The pope is of such dignity and highness, that he is 
not simply man, but, as it were, God and the vicar of 
God. Hence the pope is of such supreme and solemn 
dignity that, properly speaking, he is not merely con- 
stituted in dignity, but is rather placed on the very 
summit of dignities. Hence also the pope is father of 
fathers; and he alone can use this name, because he 
only can be called father of fathers, since he possesses 
the primacy over all, and is truly greater than all, and 
the greatest of all. He is called most holy, because he 
is presumed to be such. On account of the excellency 
of his supreme dignity, he is called bishop of bishops, 
ordinary of ordinaries, universal bishop of the church, 
or diocesan of the whole world, divine monarch, su- 
preme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope 
is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven, of 
earth, and of (infernorum) hell. Nay, the pope's 
excellence and power is not only above heavenly, ter- 
restrial, and infernal things, but he is also above 
angels, and is their superior; so that if it were possible 
that angels could err from the faith, or entertain senti- 
ments contrary thereto, they couM be judged and ex- 
communicated by the pope. He is of such great dig- 
nity and power, that he occupies one and the same 
tribunal with Christ; so that whatsoever the pope 
does, seems to proceed from the mouth of God, as is 
proved from many doctors. The pope is, as it were, 
God on earth, the only prince of the faithful of Christ, 
the greatest king of all kings, possessing the pleni- 
tude of power, to whom the government of the eaxthly 
and heavenly kingdom is entrusted. Hence the com- 
mon doctrine teaches, that the pope hath the power 



52 Boman Catholicism 

of the two swords, namely, the spiritual and temporal, 
which jurisdiction and power Christ himself committed 
to Peter and his successors, Matthew 16: ''To thee will 
I give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, ' * etc. — where 
doctors note that he did not say key, but keys, and by 
this comprehending the temporal and spiritual power: 
which opinion is abundantly confirmed by the author- 
ity of the holy fathers, the decision of the canon and 
civil law, and by the apostolic constitutions; so that 
those who hold to the contrary, seem to adhere to the 
opinion of the heretics, reprobating by Boniface VIII. 
. . . If a king becomes heretic, he can be removed 
from his kingdom by the pope, to whom the right of 
appointing a successor belongs. . . . Hence it is 
not wonderful, if to the Eoman pontiff ... to 
whom supreme authority and power are given, not 
only by the spiritual, but also by the material un- 
sheathed sword for just cause, of transferring em- 
pires, breaking sceptres, and taking away crowns. 
Which plenitude of power, not only once, but often, 
the popes used, whenever it was necessary, by binding, 
most courageously, the sword on their thigh, as is suffi- 
ciently manifest not only from the most ample testi- 
monies of theologians, the asserters of pontifical and 
regal right, but also of innumerable historians of un- 
doubted credibility, as well profane as sacred, as well 
Greek as Latin. — Ferraris Ecclesiastical Dictionary, 
art. 2. (Used as a standard for Eoman Catholic divin- 
ity.) 

''AH power in heaven and earth" was given to the 
pope . . . for the pope is greater than man, as 
saith Hostensius, but less than an angel, because he is 
mortal; but greater in authority and power. For an 
angel can not consecrate the body and blood of Christ, 
nor absolve or bind, the jurisdiction of which exists in 
a plenary manner in the pope; nor can an angel ordain, 
grant indulgences, or any such thing. He is crowned 



Swpremacy of the Pope 53 

with glory and honor; the glory of commendation, be- 
cause he is not only called blessed, but most blessed, 
as saith the canon law. Who can doubt that he is holy, 
whom the summit of such great dignity hath exalted? 
He is crowned with the honor of veneration, that the 
faithful may kiss his feet; for greater honor can not 
exist than that mentioned by the Psalmist: ^' Adore his 
footstool." Psa. 98 [99:5, A. V.]. He is crowned with 
the greatness of authority, because he judges all per- 
sons, and is judged of none, unless he is found an 
apostate from the faith. Hence also he is crowned 
with a triple crown. And is constituted over all the 
works of his hands, to regulate concerning all inferiors; 
he opens heaven, sends the guilty to hell, confirms 
empire, orders the clerical orders. — Antinonus, Arch- 
bishop of Florence, part 2, tit. 22, c. i. sec. 1. 

The pope is the head of all heads, and the prince, 
moderator, and pastor of the whole church of Christ 
which is under heaven. — ^Benedict XIV: De Synodo, 
Lib. ii, cap, 1. 

The Eoman pontiff is called by this name, not only 
because he has the supreme honor and dignity in the 
church, but especially, because he hath the supreme 
and universal authority, power, and jurisdiction over 
all bishops and the universal church. — Peter Dens: 
Eccles. 90 tom. ii, p. 430. 

All the faithful, also bishops and patriarchs, are 
bound to obey the Eoman pontiff. . . . The pope 
has not also only a directive, but also a coactive 
power over all the faithful. — Dens: Id. 94, p. 439. 

The pope of Eome hath the supremacy over all the 
earth; that he is the successor of St. Peter, the prince 
of the apostles, and the head of the church, the father 
and teacher of all Christians; and that Jesus Christ 
hath given him, in the person of St. Peter, the power to 
feed, rule, and govern the Catholic Church, as it is 
explained in the acts of oecumenical councils and in 



54 Roman Catholicism 

the holy canons. — Decision of the Council of Flor- 
ence, July 5, 1439. Du Pin: Ec. Hist., Vol. Ill, p. 35. 

I have quoted at some length from these 
Catholic authorities, to show the blasphemous 
claims of Romanism. Surely this fulfils what is 
said in Revelation 13 of the leopard beast, that 
"there was given unto him a mouth speaking 
great things, and blasphemies." "And he 
opened his mouth unto blasphemies against 
God, to blaspheme his name." Think of it! 
They say of the pope: "He is not simply man, 
but as it were God" ; "Placed on the very sum- 
mit of dignity"; "He is truly greater than all, 
and the greatest of all"; "Called most holy"; 
"Divine monarch"; "Supreme emperor, and 
king of kings" ; "King of heaven, of earth, and 
of hell"; "Above heavenly, terrestrial, and in- 
fernal things"; "Above angels, and their su- 
perior"; "Angels . . . could be judged and 
excommunicated by the pope" ; "The pope is, as 
it were, God on earth"; "The only prince of 
the faithful in Christ, the greatest king of all 
kings" ; "All power in heaven and earth is given 
to the pope" ; "The pope is greater than man" ; 
"Adore his footstool" ; "He judges all persons, 
and is judged of none"; "He opens heaven, 
sends the guilty to hell" ; "The pope is the head 
of all heads." Thus is fulfilled to the letter the 



Supremacy of the Pope 55 

prediction of St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, 
that after the "revolt" ("falling away," A. V.) 
the man of sin would be revealed, "the son of 
perdition, who opposeth, and is lifted up above 
all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so 
that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing 
himself as if he were God." 

When we consider the above claims of the 
Church of Rome in the light of the fact that 
they themselves admit that many of their popes 
were the basest of criminals and the enemies 
of all godliness, notoriously wicked, and heretics, 
we see most clearly her utter corruption, and 
that she is truly the apostate church. 

The concubinage of the clergy is known to all", and 
can not be denied by any, with any modesty. — Ger- 
hard: De Ecclesia, sec. 251, p. 425. 

They have encouraged frauds and thefts. — Id., p. 426. 

IMany popes were men of the most abandoned lives. 

Some were magicians; some were noted for sedition, 

war, and slaughter; for profligacy of manners, for 

avarice and simony. — Id., sec. 263, p. 438. 

The cardinals were also noted for pride, luxury, 
avarice, and other crimes. — Id., sec. 264, p. 439. 

The morals of the bishops, priests, and other clergy 
were equally depraved. — Id., sec. 265, p. 440. 

The morals of the people correspond to those of the 
clergy. This is not marvelous, seeing they are de- 
prived of the Scriptures, are not instructed in the 
principles of the word of God, and are the dupes of 
ignorance and superstition. — Id., sec. 268, p. 441. 

These quotations from Roman authorities, 



56 Boman Catholicism 

we deem sufficient proof of the corruption of 
that church from her head down through the 
clergy, and throughout the general membership. 

As before stated, many of the popes are 
acknowledged by Rome to have been rank her- 
etics. "Zepherinus was a Montanist." — Tertul, 
adv. Prax. "Marcellinus was an idolator." — 
Damasus in Pontif, "Liberius was an Arian; 
Anastasius was a Nestorian; Vigilius a Euty- 
chian; Honorius was a Monothelite; Sylvester 
was a Magician." 

Thus we see that men of the most infamous 
moral character, guilty of almost every mortal 
sin, have filled St. Peter's {?) chair. Is it pos- 
sible that such monsters of wickedness are the 
representative heads of the pure Church of 
God — that church which St. Paul informs us is 
"a glorious church, not having spot or wrin- 
kle," but is "holy, and without blemish".? No. 
Judged by their own admissions, the Roman 
Catholic Church is herself in the very depths 
of apostasy. 

As to their claim that the pope has power to 
wield the temporal sword over kings and rulers, 
history attests the fact that this authority was 
exercised on many occasions. In the year 730, 
Gregory II excommunicated the emperor Leo 
Isaurius, because he was against the worship 



Rome's Claim to Infallibility 57 

of images. Gregory VII, who was made pope in 
1073, deposed Henry IV in the year 1075. In 
the year 1239 Gregory IX excommunicated 
the emperor Frederick II, absolving his subjects 
from their oaths of allegiance. Pope Innocent 
IV both held and exemplified the same doc- 
trine, declaring the same Frederick II to be his 
vassal. Pope Paul II, in 1535 and 1538, excom- 
municated, cursed, deposed, and damned Henry 
VIII, of England, and all who adhered to, fa- 
vored or obeyed him. Pope Pius V, in the year 
1570, in his bull against Elizabeth, says, "The 
damnation and excommunication of Elizabeth, 
queen of England, and her adherents." These 
are but a few examples of many that could be 
cited. 



ROME'S CLAIM TO INFALLIBILITY 

It has always been the claim of the Church 
of Rome that she is infallible. As to just where 
this infallibility lies there is some difference of 
opinion among the Roman doctors. In the 
Episcopal oath of the highest clergy, every 
archbishop, bishop, and dignitary elect, swears : 
From henceforth he will be faithful and obedient to 
his lord the pope; will defend the regalities of St. 
Peter against all men; will endeavor to preserve, de- 
fend, increase, and advance his right, honors, privi- 



58 Roman Catholicism 

leges, and authority, and to his power hinder the 
contrary. 

In the creed and oath of Pope Pius IV, all 
the clergy swear: 

I acknowledge the holy Catholic and apostolic Eoman 
church, the mother and mistress of all churches; I prom- 
ise and swear true obedience to the Eoman bishop, the 
successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and 
vicar of Jesus Christ. — Article 13. 

The pontiff can not err in any case, when he teaches 
the whole church in those things which belong to faith. 
— Bellarmine: De. Pontifice iv, 3. 

This same champion of the Romish church 
further says in the next chapter of his work : 

The pontiff can not err by judicial error; that is, 
when he judges and defines a question of faith. But 
this one church, because governed by the Holy Ghost, 
can not err in faith and morals, it necessarily follows 
that all other societies arrogating to themselves the 
name of church, because guided by the spirit of dark- 
ness, are sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doc- 
trinal and moral'. — Catechism of the Council of Trent, 
p. 100. 

The pope of Eome hath the supremacy over all the 
earth; that he is the successor of St. Peter, the prince 
of the apostles, and the head of the church, the father 
and teacher of all Christians; and that Jesus Christ 
hath given him, in the person of St. Peter, the power 
to feed, rule, and govern the Catholic church, as it is 
explained in the acts of QEcumenical councils and in 
the holy canons. — Decision of the Council of Flor- 
ence, Du Pin, Eccl. Hist., Vol. Ill, p. 35. 

Jesus Christ has granted to St. Peter and his suc- 
cessors, as often as they speak in the chair, ex cathedra, 
the same infallibility which he had himself. . . . 
There is in the Eoman church an infallible judge of 



Bome^s Claim to Infallibility 59 

controversy, even excluding a general council, as well 
in questions of right as those of fact. — Du Pin, Eccl. 
Hist., cent. 17, p. 147. 

The judgment of the apostolic see, with a council 
of domestic priests, is far more certain than the judg- 
ment of a universal council of the whole earth without 
the pope. — Barrow on Supremacy, p. 395. 

"We confess and believe that the pope of Eome is the 
head of the church, and that he can not err. — Confes- 
sion of faith drawn up by the Jesuits, 19th century, 
art. 2. 

A general council, with the pope at its head, or the 
pope himself issuing a doctrinal decision, which is 
received by the great body of Catholic bishops, is se- 
cure from error. — End of Controversy, p. 84. 

This well sets forth Rome's position on in- 
fallibility as expressed by her standard writers. 
This notion they base principally on the words 
of Jesus, "The gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it." A careful analysis of the text, 
however, proves that Christ did not promise 
infallibility, but perpetuity, to the church. He 
did not say that the church should not err, 
but that it should not perish. 

These infallible {?) popes have contradicted 
each other! Gregory the Great, of the sixth 
century, says: "I confidently say, that whoso- 
ever calls himself the universal priest, or de- 
sires to be so called, in his arrogance is a 
forerunner of antichrist." — Greg. Max. Ep., 
Lib. vi, op. 30. Many popes since Gregory's 
time have declared that the Roman pontiff is 



60 Roman Catholicism 

universal bishop. Gregory VII declares "that 
the Roman pontiff alone can be properly called 
universal." — Ep.y lib. ii, ep. 55. Again Inno- 
cent I and his followers, till Pope Gelasius, 
asserted the communion of infants as necessary ; 
but this was condemned by the subsequent pope. 
Popes Le^ and Gelasius condemned communion 
in one kind, while all modern popes enjoin it. 
Gregory the Great condemned the worship of 
images and the canonicity of the books of Mac- 
cabees. These have been adopted by the sub- 
sequent popes. Stephen VI, in a provincial 
council held at Rome, annulled all the acts of 
Formosus, one of his predecessors. John IX, 
his successor, in a council held at Ravenna, an- 
nulled Stephen's acts with respect to Formosus. 
Sergius annulled the acts of Formosus a second 
time. All this was with respect to matters of 
faith and practise in the church, in which things 
Rome teaches that the bishop can not err. You 
see that the facts of history prove the claims 
of Rome to be entirely baseless. 

A number of these so-called infallible popes 
have erred and were condemned as heretics by 
the church. Pope Vigilius erred, as pope, in 
first condemning and then approving a decision 
of the fifth general council, held A. D. 553. 
{Du Pin, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 709.) Pope Li- 



Rome's Claim to InfallihUity 61 

berius, in the fourth century, erred, as pope, in 
condemning Athanasius, and consented to the 
heretical faith of the Arians, and holding com- 
munion with them. On this account he was 
anathematized by Hilary. (Du Pin, Vol. /, p. 
190.) Honorius, who was made pope in 626 
and died in 638, became a Monothelite, that is, 
he believed there was in Christ but one will and 
one operation. Forty-two years after his death 
he was condemned in the Council of Constanti- 
nople, held A. D. 680, and he must of conse- 
quence have been a heretic, if it be true that a 
general council can not err. The most cele- 
brated Roman doctors acknowledge the heresy 
of Honorius. 

The Council of Basil pronounced Pope 
Eugenius, a pertinacious heretic, deviating from 
the faith. (Concil. Basil., Sess. ^^.) There is 
one crime of which many popes have been 
guilty, and it is called by Gregory VII the 
heresy of simony. (Ep., lib. Hi, 7.) 

If it be said these were no popes, be it so. 
Then there were no true popes for centuries, 
and therefore no infallibility nor head to the 
church. 

Again, what becomes of the infallibility of 
popes when, as we shall prove, there were two 
or three popes at the same time, each excom- 



62 Eoman Catholicism 

municating the others and claiming at the same 
time to be infalhble? 

And again, "many popes were extremely 
wicked men." — Ousley, 5th ed., p. 107. Du Pin, 
Ec. Hist., Vol. II, p. 176. 

Reader, mark well the fact that these Roman 
bishops who contradicted each other in matters 
of faith — many of whom were condemned by 
general Roman councils as heretics and in error, 
a number of them guilty of simony, some of 
them extremely wicked men, sometimes as many 
as three of them claiming to be pope at the 
same time, each condemning the other — are the 
very men Rome claims as her living, visible head, 
her infallible teachers in matters of faith. 

The General Councils of Rome have contra- 
dicted each other, which proves their fallibility. 
The Council of Nice, in 325, and of Ephesus, 
in 431, decree with an anathema "that no new 
article for ever shall be added to the creed or 
faith of Nice." But the Council of Trent, more 
than twelve hundred years after, added twelve 
new articles to this very creed, pronouncing an 
anathema on all who will not embrace them. 

The Council of Laodicea, in 360 or 370, and 
the Council of Trent, in 1545, have decided in 
direct opposition to each other respecting the 
canon of Scripture. The former decided on the 



Rome's Claim, to Infallibility 63 

canon which Protestants acknowledge, rejecting 
the apocrypha, and the latter pronounced the 
apocrypha to be canonical. 

The Council of Constantinople, in 754, unan- 
imously decreed the removal of images and the 
abolition of image-worship; but the second 
Council of Nice, in 787, decreed that image-wor- 
ship should be established. 

Respecting the supremacy of the pope, coun- 
cils have differed. The first Council of Nice, 
canon sixth, decreed that the bishop of Con- 
stantinople should possess equal privileges with 
the bishop of Rome. Every one knows how this 
has been since contradicted, by both councils 
and popes. {Du Piriy Vol. /, p. 600.) 

In the year 1215 the fourth Council of Lat- 
eran decreed that the bread and wine in the sac- 
rament of the eucharist underwent a physical 
change, which they termed transubstantiation. 
This Council received positive historical evidence 
that during the first five centuries, at least, the 
Catholic church, so far from teaching the doc- 
trine of a physical change, positively, explicitly, 
and controversially denied such a change. Thus 
it is manifest, since the Catholic church at one 
period denied the doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion and at another time maintained it, it is 
impossible that she should be infallible. 



64 Roman CatJiolicism 

Besides, how can we believe in the infallibility 
of assemblies that taught doctrines at once un- 
just and subversive of society, and in which the 
adulation of the pope is carried even to blas- 
phemy? Could the fourth Council of Lateran 
be infallible, in which the pope was acknowl- 
edged to possess the power of disposing of the 
temporalities of sovereigns, of depriving them 
of their crowns, and of delivering their subjects 
from the oath of allegiance? Could the fifth 
Council of Lateran be infallible, which, in its 
first session, gave to the pope the appellation of 
"prince of the universe" and praised Boniface 
VII for having taken the kingdom of France 
from Philip the Fair? which, in its second ses- 
sion, called the Roman pontiff a priest and king, 
who is to be adored by all people, and who is 
very like unto God? which, in its fifth session, 
spoke of Leo X in these terms : "Weep not, 
daughter of Zion, for behold the Lion of the 
tribe of Judah, the Root of David; behold God 
hath raised thee up a Savior"? Thus'^ey ap- 
plied to a sinner the prophetic words which 
designate the Savior of the world. Could the 
Holy Spirit inspire such blasphemies as these? 

The thirteenth session of the Council of 
Trent declares that the bread becomes onli/ the 
body, and the wine becomes onlt/ the blood of 



75 Peter the Foundation f 65 

Christ: "There becomes a conversion of the 
whole substance of the bread into the substance 
of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the 
whole substance of the wine into the substance 
of his blood." But the twenty-first session of 
the same Council declares that under one kind 
only the whole and perfect Christ and true sac- 
rament is taken: "If any one shall deny that 
the whole and entire Christ, the fountain and 
the author of all grace, is received under the 
species of bread alone, let him be accursed." 
Thus the Council of Trent contradicts itself, 
and therefore can not be infallible. The de- 
cisions of this Council are the standard for 
Roman belief. 

Since the General Councils, as well as the 
popes of Rome, contradict each other, which the 
pages of history and the standard Catholic 
authorities clearly attest, we are forced to con- 
clude that all their boasted claim to infallibility 
is baseless. Thus we remove one of the main pil- 
lars that supports the entire Roman structure. 



IS PETER THE FOUNDATION? 

The whole Roman contention that the Church 
of Rome is the primitive church rests on the 
assumption that Peter was selected by the Lord 



66 Roman CatJiolicism 

to be the foundation upon which the Christian 
church was built ; that to him were delivered the 
keys of the kingdom; that Peter set up his See 
at Rome, and became the first universal bishop 
of the church. The above supposition, however, 
is without any support in the Word of God. 
Peter did not possess or exercise a, primacy of 
superiority, in power, command, or jurisdiction 
over the other apostles ; and Peter had not, by 
our Lord's appointment, or by divine right, 
supremacy over the other apostles. It is prob- 
able that he excelled some of the other apostles 
in personal endowments and ability. He was a 
man of quick apprehension, bold spirit, activity, 
industry, and zeal, and he was closely attached 
to Christ. But to say that the Lord conferred 
upon him the position of universal bishop, or 
pope, over all the rest, is false. 

"And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea 
Philippi; and he asked his disciples, saying: 
Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But 
they said: Some John the Baptist, and others 
Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of the 
prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do 
you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and 
said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living 
God. And Jesus answering, said to him : Blessed 
art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and 



7s Peter fhe Foundation? 67 

blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father 
who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That 
thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will build 
my church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
vail against it. And I will give to thee the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou 
shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in 
heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 
it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt. 16: 
13-19). The greatest advocates and writers of 
the Church of Rome acknowledge that this is 
the principal text upon which they rely for 
infallibility in their church and for the suprem- 
acy of the pope. If this fails them, their struc- 
ture must fall. 

On this text, as far as pertains to the present 
subject, we remark: When Jesus asked the im- 
portant question, "Whom do you say that I 
am.?" Peter, who was impulsive and always quick 
to act and speak, answered, "Thou art Christ, 
the Son of the living God." But all the other 
disciples made the same confession of faith. 
"And they that were in the boat came and 
adored him, saying : Indeed thou art the Son of 
God" (Matt. 14:33). "And we have believed 
and have known, that thou art the Christ, the 
Son of God" (John 6: 70). Nathaniel, as well 
as Peter, had this fact revealed to him — "Thou 



68 Roman Catholicism 

art the Son of God" (John 1 : 49). "Thou art 
Peter; and upon this rock I will build my 
church." The construction of the original plain- 
ly distinguishes between Peter and the rock. If 
it were written, "Upon this Peter I will build," 
then, of course, the Apostle would be referred 
to. "Peter" is from the Greek p^tros, which 
means strictly a piece of a rock — a stone. To 
suit the Catholic contention, the construction 
of the text must be: "Thou art petros [stone], 
and upon this petros [stone] I will build my 
church." But such is not its construction. 
"Thou art petros [a little stone], and upon this 
petra [rock] I will build my church." The 
dignity of the real foundation, expressed by the 
figure of petra, or rock, is superior to that ex- 
pressed by the word petros, or stone. "Peter" 
does not mean "a rock," though it has a relative 
meaning to that word. The one is masculine, 
the other feminine. Nothing less could be 
understood by petra — rock — than our Lord's 
divine dignity, as declared by Peter in the pre- 
ceding context, "Thou art Christ, the Son of 
the living God." I affirm that our Lord referred 
to this declaration of Peter, relating to his own 
divine dignity, as being the true rock upon 
which he would build his church, and this is es- 
tablished by the clear distinction made by Christ 



Is Peter the Foundation? 69 

between the stone — petros — and the rock — 
petra, and by the accurate grammatical man- 
ner in which both the words are used. Christ 
was superior to Simon as a solid rock is superior 
to a movable stone. 

On this important point, however, we have 
the unmistakable testimony of the Scriptures. 
"The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my 
savior. God is my strong one, in him will I 
trust" (2 Kings 22:2, 3—2 Sam. 22:2, 3, 
A. v.). Even the Old Testament saints, in type 
and shadow, "all drank the same spiritual drink ; 
and they drank of the spiritual rock that fol- 
lowed them, and the rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 
10: 4). "Other foundation no man can lay, but 
that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus" (1 
Cor. 3: 11). Here we have the positive testi- 
mony of Scripture that Jehovah alone is the 
rock upon which we build, and that the New 
Testament church rests on Jesus Christ. He 
is its underlying rock. 

The whole structure of Christianity rests 
upon "Christ, the Son of the living God." To 
apply the title "rock" to Peter, in Matthew 16, 
is inconsistent with the plain reference to the 
preceding context made by our Lord in the be- 
ginning of this verse — **And I say to thee" — 



70 Roman CatJiolicism 

which points to our Lord's dignity in the pre- 
ceding sentence, ''Thou art Christ,'' the true 
foundation, or rock, on which alone the true 
Church of God is built. Our faith in Christ, 
"the Son of the living God," is the only se- 
curity, or rock, of our salvation. True faith, 
predicated on this foundation, is secure; the 
gates of hell can never prevail against it. Thus 
he who hears the sayings of Christ and does 
them, builds upon an eternal rock. (See Matt. 
7:24, 25.) 

It may be objected that Christ is sometimes 
also termed a stone. To this I reply: That 
whenever the figurative expression "stone" — 
lithos — is applied to Christ, it is always with 
such a clear distinction of superiority over all 
other figurative stones as will not admit the 
idea of any vicarial stone in his place. For 
example, "Behold I will lay a stone in the foun- 
dations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner-stone, 
founded in the foundation" (Isa. 28: 16). "The 
stone which the builders rejected; the same is 
become the head of the corner" (Psa. 117: 22 — 
118:22, A. v.). Peter himself quotes these 
scriptures and applies them exclusively to 
Christ. He terms Christ the "chief corner- 
stone," "head of the corner" (1 Pet. 2:6, 7). 
The whole argument of Peter clearly shows that 



Is Peter the Foundation? 71 

there can be no other head of the church than 
Christ himself. 

It is pretty clear that the epistle of Peter 
from which the above quotation is taken was 
written about A. D. 60. According to Roman 
Catholic computation, Peter had already been 
sitting seventeen years upon his papal throne 
at Rome as universal bishop and head of the 
church. But Peter's language clearly shows 
that he knew nothing of the appointment of any 
vicar on earth to represent that rock, or eter- 
nal head of the church. Peter further says that 
all Christians are "as lively stones built up, a 
spiritual house" (1 Pet. 2:5). 

That Peter constituted a foundation-stone in 
the building we do not deny. But all the other 
apostles held the same position. The church is 
"built upon the foundation of the apostles and 
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief 
corner-stone" (Eph. 2: 20). John, in speaking 
of the church in the apocalyptic vision of the 
new Jerusalem, says, "The city had twelve foun- 
dations, and in them, the twelve names of the 
twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14). 
The apostles were termed "foundation-stones" 
because upon their testimony concerning the 
person, life, death, and resurrection of Christ, 
the faith of all Christians is grounded. This 



72 Bommi Catholicism 

truth was maintained and propagated by their 
preaching, by their holy practise, and by their 
miraculous performances. We believe on Christ 
through their word (John 17:20). Thus in 
reality the gospel of Jesus Christ constitutes 
the great foundation of our Christian faith, and 
Christ is the underlying rock upon which the 
gospel rests. The blood of his atonement and 
his triumphant resurrection from the dead is 
the power, theme, and inspiration of the gos- 
pel. Remove this, and the whole structure of 
Christianity falls to the ground. Thus we see 
the truth of Paul's statement that "other foun- 
dation no man can lay, but that which is laid; 
which is Christ Jesus." But the gospel has 
come to us through the apostles' inspiration and 
writing. It is upon their testimony we rely. 
This is the sense in which they constitute foun- 
dation-stones in this building. 

As to the keys of the kingdom delivered to 
Peter, it is true that he was specially chosen of 
the Lord as the apostle to the circumcision. On 
the memorable day of Pentecost, when the Chris- 
tian church was fully organized, Peter was the 
instrument used in preaching the gospel, and at 
that time thousands of the Jews were converted 
to God. Also the Lord made choice that by him 
the Gentiles should hear the glad tidings. Thus 



Is Peter the Foundatimif 73 

by Peter was opened the door through which the 
Gentiles, as well as the Jews came into posses- 
sion of the blessings of the kingdom and into 
membership in the Church of God. In connec- 
tion with the delivery of the keys of the king- 
dom, Jesus said, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind 
upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven," 
etc. This binding and loosing is effected by the 
preaching of the gospel. By reference to Matt. 
18 : 18 it will be seen that this same power to 
bind and to loose was bestowed upon all the 
apostles, and no doubt applies to the entire 
ministry in the Christian dispensation. 

It is clear that neither Peter nor the rest of 
the apostles understood the words of Jesus as 
promising to Peter a supremacy over the others. 
Would they have contended among themselves 
which should be the greatest, had they under- 
stood, as the Romanists claim, that this was al- 
ready settled by our Lord.^^ Christ rebuked 
this very spirit by calling attention to the way 
the Gentiles exercised lordship over each other, 
and said, "But it is not so among you." It 
was after this that he told them, "Be not you 
called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all 
you are brethren." Lordship and domination 
are an abomination in the sight of God. 

Paul never recognized the supremacy of Peter, 



74 Roman Catholicism 

for he says, "I suppose that I have done noth- 
ing less than the great apostles" (2 Cor. 11 : 5). 
"I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apos- 
tles," A. S. V. In the discharge of his office, 
immediately after his call and commission from 
Christ, without consulting or taking license 
from any man, he applied himself to his work. 
"Immediately I condescended not to flesh and 
blood. Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the 
apostles who were before me" (Gal. 1: 16, 17). 
"For I have no way come short of them that 
are above measure apostles" (2 Cor. 12:11). 
This positively denies the Romish doctrine of 
Peter's supremacy over the others. There is 
as much ground to say that Paul was the uni- 
versal bishop of the church as to claim such an 
office for Peter; for Paul says that there came 
upon him daily "the solicitude for all the 
churches." He speaks of James and John as 
equal pillars in the church with Peter (Gal. 
2:9). While the gospel of the circumcision 
was in a special manner bestowed upon Peter, 
the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed 
unto Paul. The field of the latter was much 
larger than that of the former. Paul, in speak- 
ing of the other apostles, Peter included, says 
"What they were some time, it is nothing to me, 
God accepteth not the person of man" (Gal. 



Is Peter the Foundation f 75 

2:6). On one occasion, Paul withstood Peter 
and reproved him before all, "because he was 
to be blamed" (Gal. 2: 11-14). All this proves 
that the contention for Peter's supremacy over 
the rest is a mere invention of the Church of 
Rome and that such a thing was not known or 
recognized by the primitive church and min- 
istry. In the church at Corinth there were sev- 
eral parties — "I indeed am of Paul; and I am 
of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" 
(1 Cor. 1 : 12). If it were so, that Peter was 
sovereign of the apostles, is it not remarkable 
that any Christian should prefer any other 
apostle to him? Is it not strange that Paul 
did not here say something with reference to 
Peter's supremacy .^ Ah, the fact is he knew of 
no such thing; in fact, he taught the very con- 
trary: "Let no man therefore glory in men" 
(1 Cor. 3:21). 

When the great controversy arose over cir- 
cumcision and other matters, there was no re- 
course to Peter as the supreme head or judge 
of controversies. The brethren sent to the 
apostles and priests (elders) to inquire about 
the question (Acts 15 : 2). When they arrived, 
"they were received by the church, and by the 
apostles and ancients [elders]" (v. 4). "And 
the apostles and ancients [elders] assembled to 



76 Roman CatJiolicism 

consider of this matter" (v. 6). Peter did not 
call, convene, or summon this council, or as- 
sembly, for they met by common agreement; 
neither did he preside in the meeting. It is evi- 
dent from a careful reading of Acts 15 that 
James, who was a senior elder and no doubt the 
recognized pastor of the church at Jerusalem, 
presided at this great meeting. Though Peter 
spoke, he did not preside here; and mark the 
fact that this was the first great ecclesiastical 
council of the church on record. This proves 
that that great assemblage of primitive minis- 
ters and apostles did not recognize Peter as 
the vicar of Christ on earth nor as the visible 
head of the church. Nor did Peter send his 
legates to Antioch, to signify what he and his 
council had done; but "then pleased it the 
apostles and ancients [elders], with the whole 
church, to choose men of their own company, 
and to send to Antioch" (v. 22). Nor was the 
decree sent in the name of Peter. "The apos- 
tles and ancients [elders], brethren, to the 
brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, 
and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting" (v. 23). 

Instead of Peter having supremacy over the 
rest, the record proves him to have been sub- 
ject to their judgment and direction. "Now 
when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem had 



Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne? 11 

heard that Samaria had received the word of 
God, they sent unto them Peter and John" 
(Acts 8: 14). There were times when the other 
ministers called Peter to account for his action 
(see Acts 11 : 2, 3). How different the actions 
of the Church of Rome, who say of their bishop 
"that he was to judge all men, and none him; 
nor was he to be reproved by any mortal man, 
though by his impiety and ill example he car- 
ried thousands to hell with him." — Si. Papa., 
dist, 40.. 



WAS PETER EVER BISHOP OF ROME? 

This point is vital, for the papacy is prac- 
tically built upon the assumption that Peter 
went to Rome, set up his See there, and became 
the first bishop. On this supposition, Peter 
Dens bases his argument that the church of 
Rome is the true apostolic church. 

Because it hath a legitimate and uninterrupted suc- 
cession of bishops, especially in the very seat of Peter, 
. . . or to the Eoman seat founded by Peter. — Dens: 
De Eccl'es., No. 78, p. 402. 

It is apostolical on account of the ministry, whose 
pastoral order, commenced by the apostles, has suc- 
ceeded to our time without intermission. — Bailly: De 
Apostolicity Ecclesia, p. 356. 

You see Romanists lay great stress on this 
point, for everything depends upon it. If they 



78 Roman Catholicism 

fail here, all is lost. In this chapter I will pre- 
sent the following facts and truths, which com- 
pletely overthrow and demolish the underlying 
rock and foundation of the papacy. 

First, The continuation of this succession is 
attended with great difficulties, — "Tertullian 
places Clement after Peter. Jerome does the 
same, and this opinion is supported by the canon 
law. But Optatus places Linus after Peter, and 
makes Clement third. Augustine does the same. 
Irenaeus places Linus after Peter, then Cletus, 
and in the fourth place, Clement." Others of 
these Catholic Fathers arrange them still dif- 
ferently. This proves that there was a great 
deal of guesswork about the matter of succes- 
sion. On this guesswork rests the papacy. 

Second, This supposed succession of popes 
was interrupted hy repeated vacancies. — The 
Roman Catholic Platina is authority for the 
statement of the fact that "after John III, the 
Roman seat was vacant ten months and three 
days ; after Pelagius II, six months and twenty- 
eight days ; after Gregory, five months and nine- 
teen days ; after Fabian, eleven months and 
twenty-six days ; after Boniface III, six months 
and twenty-five days ; after Severinus, four 
months and twenty-nine days ; after Martin I, 
fourteen months ; after Vitalianus, four months 



Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne? 79 

and fifteen days; after Paul, one year and one 
month; after Nicholas I, eight years, seven 
months, and nine days," etc. This makes sev- 
eral big gaps in Rome's uninterrupted succes- 
sion. 

Third, RoTne^s succession of bishops was in- 
terrupted by various schisms among the popes 
themselves. — Roman authorities admit twenty- 
eight schisms that happened in the Roman seat. 
The twenty-seventh schism, between Urban VI 
and Clement VI, lasted thirty years. Catholic 
historians admit that there were times when 
as many as three popes, all claiming supremacy 
at once, excommunicated and cursed one an- 
other in a shocking manner. It is preposterous 
to attempt to trace the succession of bishops 
through those centuries. Yet this supposed suc- 
cession is what Rome depends on to prove that 
she is the apostolic church. 

Fourth, Many of these popes were pro- 
nounced rank heretics by Roman Catholic coun- 
cils,, — Zepherinus was a Montanist; Marcellinus 
was an idolator; Liberius was an Arian; Anas- 
tasius was a Nestorian; Vigilius an Eutychian; 
Honorius was a Monethelite ; Sylvester was a 
Magian. This being true, the supposed Roman 
succession has come down through a line of 
bishops that Rome herself admits were rank 



80 Boman Catholicism 

heretics. In all candor and reason I ask, Does 
this prove that the Church of Rome is ortho- 
dox? In the fear of God I affirm that this is 
positive proof of the heterodoxy of this insti- 
tution. 

Fifth, Men of the *'most infamous moral 
character, guilty of almost every mortal sin, 
have filled St. Peter's chair.'' — (In previous 
chapters of this work I have quoted standard 
authors of the Church of Rome who admit this 
fact.) It is upon these monsters of wickedness 
that Rome depends for the apostolicity of her 
church. In all the above, Rome clearly fulfils 
Paul's prediction that "after my departure, 
ravening wolves will enter in among you"; and 
Jesus' prediction that "many false prophets 
shall arise, . . . and because iniquity hath 
abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold." 
In the light of the facts of history and the 
admission of the writers of the Roman church, 
we are forced to conclude that she constitutes 
the great apostasy of the Christian era. 

Sixth, Peter never was bishop of Rome. — 
This I will show. There is absolutely no Scrip- 
tural authority for such a belief. In fact, it can 
not be proved from Scripture that Peter was 
ever at Rome. 

It may well be asked, then. Upon what rests 



Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne? 81 

the belief that Peter established his See at Rome 
and became universal bishop of the church? I 
answer, Upon tradition. This tradition, like 
most of the traditions that have come down to 
us, will not stand the test of a strict and im- 
partial historical examination. 

The incident at Antioch, recorded in Gal. 
2: 11-14, is the last that is certainly known of 
Peter. The next historical mention of him is 
made by Clement of Rome. However, we have 
traditional accounts of the Apostle until the 
time of his death, and we may accept as alto- 
gether probable that some of these traditions 
are built around a nucleus of fact. But we 
have two distinct streams of tradition to con- 
sider. The one represents Peter's work in the 
West, and the other his work in the East. Cer- 
tain early writers, as Clement of Rome and 
Ignatius, may be understood to imply that 
Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. Clement, 
however, though mentioning both Peter and 
Pavd, seems to make it a distinguishing circum- 
stance that Paul preached both in the East and 
in the West, which would imply that Peter never 
preached in the West. Papias, Justin Martyr, 
Dionysius of Corinth, Irenseus, Tertullian, and 
Clement of Alexandria all accept the tradition 
of Peter's being at Rome. On the other hand. 



82 Roman Catholicism 

the other stream of tradition (for which it is 
difficult to account if the first had been uni- 
form) to the effect that Peter labored at Anti- 
och, in Asia Minor, in Babylonia, and in the 
"country of the Barbarians" on the northern 
shores of the Black Sea. Now while there is no 
Scriptural warrant for the first line of tradi- 
tion, there are Scriptural evidences in support 
of the latter, for it is in harmony with the 
geographical details of the first of the two epis- 
tles which bear his name. The first epistle is 
addressed to "the strangers scattered through- 
out Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and 
Bithynia" (1 Pet. 1:1). The "Babylon" from 
which it was obviously written (chap. 5: 13) is 
best understood literally, like the other geo- 
graphical names of the epistles in the New Tes- 
tament, and as signifying the Chaldean Babylon. 
This is the opinion held by Dr. Adam Clark, 
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, and other able 
commentators. According to the historians 
Philo and Josephus, Babylon contained a great 
many Jews in the apostolic age; whereas Jo- 
sephus represents the number of Jews in Rome 
as comparatively few, about eight thousand. 
Josephus lived in the time of Peter, and with 
reference to Babylon, he says that Hyrcanus, 
the Jewish high priest, was banished by the king 



Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne f 83 

of Parthia and was given "permission to live 
in Babylon where there were many Jews and 
that all of the Jews who dwelt in Babylon and 
in the country as far as the Euphrates acknowl- 
edged Hyrcanus as their high priest." 

Peter was the apostle of the circumcision as 
Paul was of the uncircumcision. How natural, 
then, that Peter should go to the people of his 
own nation! At that time the Parthians were 
masters of Mesopotamian Babylon, and it was 
Jewish "Parthians . . . dwellers in Meso- 
potamia" that the apostle had so successfully 
addressed on the day of Pentecost. His other 
converts on that occasion, Jewish 'dwellers in 
Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, and Phrygia,' he ad- 
dresses by letter, while he ministers in person 
to the Parthians in Mesopotamia, sending salu- 
tations from them to their brethren scattered 
abroad. 

To accept the Romanist position that Peter 
was bishop of Rome for twenty-five years would 
mean to set aside his extensive work in the 
East, a work which undoubtedly rests upon a 
Scriptural foundation. On the other hand, to 
take the positive position that Peter never was 
in Rome would mean to ignore the direct state- 
ments of a considerable number of early writers. 
It is not easy to impeach the testimony of writ- 



84 Roman Catholicism 

ers regarding statements of fact, although 
around an original fact may grow up a vast 
body of traditions, which are often wholly unre- 
liable; such as the legendary story of Peter's 
controversy with Simon Magus in Rome, as set 
forth in the Pseudo-Clementine epistle. No 
early writer suggests any other place than Rome 
as the scene of Peter's death, and all agree that 
he suffered martyrdom. But it was not until 
the middle of the third century that Peter was 
definitely claimed as bishop of Rome (Cyprian 
Epist. 55:8, 59:14). It remained for later 
writers to develop this claim and to give it its 
prominent standing in the Romish church. 

Although Roman Catholics are required to 
accept the claims of Peter's episcopacy in Rome 
and to swear by it, the claim rests upon such an 
uncertain basis in fact that even some of their 
own number have felt obliged to repudiate it. 
Chas. Du Moulin, a great ecclesiastical lawyer 
of the sixteenth century, whom Father Calmet 
mentioned as a stedfast Roman Catholic, says : 

Even when after the breaking-up of the empire the 
bishops of Eome began to extend their authority over 
other churches, they never alleged or put forth this 
story of Peter's being at Eome; the story, I suppose, 
not having yet been invented. — Mission and Martyr- 
dom of St. Peter, Vol. 4, p. 460. 

Ellendorf, Roman Catholic professor at Ber- 



Was Peter Ever Bishop of Romef 85 

lin, Bib. Sac, January 1859, 105, says : "Peter's 
abode at Rome can never be proved." Father 
Hardouin, a French Jesuit ; Frances Turretin ; 
De Cormeniu in his History of the Popes, and 
other Catholics, admit the same thing. 

Again we will appeal to the Bible and show 
that its evidences are directly opposed to the 
idea of Peter's long residence in Rome, as 
claimed by the Catholics. 

From what Luke says, it is evident that Peter 
continued in Judea till the council met at Jeru- 
salem (see Acts 15) to consider the question 
concerning circumcision and the ceremonial law, 
for he was present at the time. This was in the 
year 51, according to Bellarmine, Baronius, and 
others ; or in the year 49, according to Valesius ; 
some place it at 52. 

It is further evident that Peter was not at 
Rome when the council sat at Jerusalem, whether 
in 49 or 52 ; for at this time he was at Jerusalem. 
Paul tells us that three years after his con- 
version, which occurred about 37, he went to 
Jerusalem to see Peter, and found him there. 
And fourteen years after, or about the year 51, 
he went to Jerusalem again, and then found 
Peter there. According to the Roman Catholic 
computation, in the year 51 Peter had sat eight 
years as bishop of Rome. And yet Paul neither 



86 Boma/n Catholicism 

sought nor found him at Rome, but at Jeru- 
salem. 

Neither Peter nor any of the sacred writers give 
us the least hint that Peter was ever at Eome. We are 
told of his being at Antioch, Jerusalem, Corinth, 
Babylon, etc., but there is no mention of his being at 
Rome, the great seat of the empire. — Elliott. 

The silence of Paul in particular must be a 
convincing proof that Peter was never bishop of 
Rome. 

In Paul's Epistle to the Romans, there is no men- 
tion made of Peter. From Rome, he wrote to the 
. . . Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, and 
Philemon, without ever mentioning Peter. 

According to the accounts of the papal doctors, 
Peter was bishop of Rome twenty-five years, from the 
year 42 to the year 67. 

Now, there are recorded seven incidents in 
Paul's life connected with Rome during that 
period — once he wrote to the church at Rome, 
five times he wrote from Rome, and once he 
dwelt there at least two years. 

There is yet no hint given that Peter was there dur- 
ing any of these times; and it would be hard to sup- 
pose he was there and that Paul would take no notice 
of him. This will appear not only extraordinary, but 
even incredible, if we will only examine the circum- 
stances of these visitations, and the language which 
Paul uses on these occasions. . . . 

He and Timothy join in the address to the Colossian 
church (Col. 1:1, 2). Surely some regard would have 
been paid to Peter had he been there. 

About the year 58 he wrote his Epistle to the Ro- 
mans. And though he salutes numbers of persons, and 



Was Peter Ever Bishop of Rome? 87 

those, too, of highest repute, Peter is never mentioned 
(see Eom. 16:3-16). Now, had Peter been at Borne 
at this time, as the angel, or bishop, or minister in 
pastoral charge of the church of Eome, surely some 
mention had been made of him; especially as Paul 
salutes so many, even calling twenty-five of them by 
name, with several households, and others not named. 
This is the more strange, as the custom was to salute 
those persons of greatest note, especially ministers of 
the word. 

Besides, in the Epistle to the Eomans there is no 
reference made to the presence of Peter at Rome 
previous to the year 58, though, according to the Roman 
Catholic account, he had been already fifteen years 
bishop there. Nor is there anything said in reference 
to his coming to or being at Rome at any future time, 
as head of the church, or in any other capacity. Hence 
the inference is that Peter never was at Rome. [Or, 
at any rate, that he was not there during the time of 
Paul's experience with that church.] 

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, written at Rome 
about 61 [or 64], there is no mention that Peter ever 
had been at Rome or that he was there then. . . . 

About the year 62 [or 64] Paul wrote to the Philip* 
plans. But though he associates Timothy with him- 
self in saluting the Philippian church in the beginning 
of his epistle, and associates with himself, in the salu- 
tations at the close of the epistle, the brethren tliat 
were with him, especially those of Caesar's household, 
there is, nevertheless, not one word about Peter. 

Paul wrote to the Colossians about the year 62 
[or 64]. Peter was not there then, when Paul, after 
mentioning Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Mark, 
and Justus, adds, "These only are my helpers in the 
kingdom of God; who have been a comfort to me'* 
(Col. 4:11). It is evident, therefore, that Peter was 



88 Roman Catholicism 

not then at Eome, else he certainly would have been 
mentioned in the list. 

In the Epistle to Philemon, written from Rome about 
A. D. 62, no mention is made of Peter. 

We find when Paul appealed to Caesar, and had been 
sent to Rome, he tarried two full years in that city 
preaching the gospel, or from years 63 to 65. Never- 
theless, there is no account of Peter's being there 
on his arrival, nor during his two years' ministry, 
or at his departure from there (see Acts 28). 

The Second Epistle to Timothy was written about the 
year 65 or 66. Paul says [after mentioning by name 
certain ministers who had either forsaken him or de- 
parted to other fields of labor], ''at my first answer, 
no man stood with me, but all men forsook me" (2 Tim. 
4:6-16). Surely had Peter been there, he would not 
have forsaken him. This, too, was immediately before 
the death of Paul. . . . 

Here are six distinct times in which Paul was at 
Rome, or wrote to or from Rome. In one year he 
wrote three times from Rome. At another time he re- 
mained two full years preaching. From the first to the 
last time was a period of thirteen or fourteen years. 
Nevertheless, he gives no account that Peter had been 
expected there subsequent to any of his visits, that he 
was there before his arrival, or during his stay. Yet 
he governed the affairs of the church of Rome, gave 
directions for their conduct, and mentioned by name, 
in his salutations, all the principal Christians at Rome, 
whether men or women. And still he says not one 
word about Peter, who, according to the Romanists, 
had his throne at Rome, and governed the church 
there, previous to Paul's arrival, during his stay, and 
after his departure. Surely, if Peter ever had been at 
Rome, there would be some mention made of it by Paul. 
. . . And, as it can not be proved that he ever was 
bishop or pope of Rome, the keystone of the supremacy 



Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne f 89 

is taken out, and the entire fabric falls to the ground. 
For it must appear there is no proof . . . that he 
ever wrote from Rome or was bishop there. 

Besides, the traditionary account of Peter's being at 
Rome is not only contrary to the authentic account of 
him which we have in the New Testament, but it is 
inconsistent with itself. — Delineation of Roman Cathol- 
icism. 

Concerning the time of his coming to Rome the 
ancient writers do not agree. Eusebius saith it was in 
the time of Claudius; but by Hierom, who saith he sat 
there twenty-five years, until the last year of Nero, 
it must follow that he came thither the second or third 
of Claudius: yet Damascus saith he came to Rome in 
the beginning of Nero's empire, and sat there twenty- 
five years; whereas Nero reigned but fourteen years. 
He saith also that his disputation with Simon Magus 
was in the presence of Nero the emperor. Eusebius 
reporteth it under Claudius. Anterius, bishop of Rome, 
as Nicephorus testifieth, did write that Peter was trans- 
lated from Antioch to Rome, and from thence he passed 
to Alexandria, because he might more profit the church 
there. — Fulke. 

Had there been any solid foundation for the 
assumption that Peter was bishop of Rome, such 
confusion and contradiction of the subject 
would not exist. 

A careful, unbiased consideration of all the 
facts and traditions bearing on this subject 
leads me to the conclusion expressed by a cer- 
tain writer, that "while it is admitted as certain 
that Peter suffered martyrdom, in all probabil- 
ity by crucifixion, and also probable that this 



90 Roman CatJiolicism 

took place at Rome, it has nevertheless been 
made pretty clear that he never was for any 
length of time resident in that city, and morally 
certain that he never was bishop of the church 
there." 



IS THE CHURCH OF ROME THE TRUE 
CATHOLIC CHURCH? 

Thus Bellarmine defines the church: 

The church is an assembly of men, united in the pro- 
fession of one and the same Christian faith, and in the 
communion of the same sacraments, under the gov- 
ernment of their lawful pastors, as especially of the 
Eoman pontiff. — Vide Lieberman, Theol., p. 45. 

This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be 
saved. — Article 15, Creed and oath of Pope Pius IV. 

The above defines the Roman position. Sub- 
mission and obedience to the government "of 
the Roman pontiff" — the pope — is essential to 
membership in the Church of Rome, and this 
they define as the "true Catholic faith, out of 
which none can be saved." This virtually teaches 
that all who do not submit to the supremacy 
of the bishop of Rome are lost. So they teach : 

It necessarily follows that all other societies arrogat- 
ing to themselves the name of church, because guided 
by the spirit of darkness, are sunk into the most per- 
nicious errors, both doctrinal and moral. — Catechism of 
the Council of Trent, p. 100. 

The word "catholic" signifies (1) Universal, 



Is Rome the True Catholic Church? 91 

or general. The Christian church is catholic in 
that it includes all true believers in all places 
and at all times. It consists of "every tribe, 
and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 
5:9). (2) Orthodox, because it preserves the 
true faith, the universal faith of the gospel, 
which was once delivered to the saints. 

It is unscriptural to use the term "catholic" 
to designate the name of the church, as the 
"Catholic Church." The word "catholic" is not 
found anywhere in the Scripture as applied to 
the church. The name given to the church is 
"the church of god." (See Acts 20:28; 1 
Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Cor. 10:32; 1 Cor. 
11:16, 22; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; 1 Thess. 
2: 14; 2 Thess. 1: 4; 1 Tim. 3: 5; 1 Tim. 3: 15.) 
The first time we have the term "Catholic 
Church" is in the so-called Apostles' Creed, 
which was not composed by the apostles at all, 
but was a later production. 

By affixing the name "catholic" to herself 
does not in the least prove that the Church of 
Rome is the orthodox, or apostolic, church. 
The Jews called themselves "the sons of God," 
and the "seed of Abraham" (John 8:33), but 
Jesus proved that they were not the true seed. 
Paul said that false apostles would call them- 
selves ministers of Christ and transform them- 



92 Bomcm Catholicism 

selves into apostles of Christ. Ascribing to 
themselves such titles did not make them such. 
So with the Church of Rome. 

Even in the nominal sense the Church of 
Rome can not be said to be the catholic, or uni- 
versal, church. It can be clearly sustained by 
history that down through the ages there have 
been thousands and millions of religious people 
whose piety rated to the highest standard of 
any found in Rome, who did not bow to the 
supremacy of the Roman bishop. Many mil- 
lions of these were put to death by the command 
of the temporal kings who obeyed the injunc- 
tion of the pope. While the Western churches 
acknowledged the Roman supremacy, the East- 
em churches did not. These latter were just 
as pious and God-fearing as the former. The 
Roman church, then, has never been truly 
catholic. She is not the catholic church, though 
she has assumed the name. 

Look at the figures today. The Church of 
Rome numbers between 175,000,000 and 200,- 
000,000. The Protestant churches number 
about 150,000,000. The Greek church, which 
is bitter against the Roman supremacy, num- 
bers about 90,000,000. Thus the Protestant 
churches and the Greek church together number 
about 240,000,000, or at least 40,000,000 more 



Is Rome tJie True CatJiolic CTiurchf 93 

than the Church of Rome. Judged by their 
morals, the Greeks and Protestants are as much 
entitled to the name Christian as are the dev- 
otees of the Romish church. Thus by incon- 
trovertible facts we prove that Rome does not 
represent the catholic church. 

How much more is this true when we judge 
her in the light of the New Testament and prim- 
itive Christianity! She can not, without ab- 
surdity or impiety, be called the true catholic 
church. She is no more the universal church 
than the Roman jurisdiction is all heaven and 
earth. The Church of God contains all true 
believers. As salvation constitutes men mem- 
bers of it, all the saved are its members. No 
one can be a Christian outside of the divine 
church. The church is the body of Christ, and 
the body of Christ includes all the redeemed in 
heaven and on earth. 

This is one of the principal distinguishing 
features between the true church and the false, 
between the divine ecclesia and man-made insti- 
tutions. This one truth, the catholicity of the 
Church of God, locates every sect. The Church 
of God includes the family of God, and it is 
but one family in heaven and on earth ; therefore 
it includes in its membership every Christian — 
all the redeemed in paradise, and all the saved 



94 Roman Catholicism 

on earth. Including all Christians, it is not a 
sect, but is the whole. Now, a church that does 
not include in its membership all Christians in 
heaven and on earth can not be God's church, 
hence it is a sect. This rule applies to the 
Church of Rome as well as to Protestant sects. 
Before any of these institutions arose, there 
were millions of Christians. It is clear that the 
Church of God was geographically distributed 
in large and flourishing congregations at Jeru- 
salem and throughout all Judea, Samaria, and 
no doubt in Asia Minor, long before there was a 
church at Rome. The primitive church num- 
bered into millions before there was even a uni- 
versal Roman pontiff. All these lived and died 
without knowing of the idolatry and supersti- 
tion of the Roman Catholic Church. 

None of the blood-washed saints in paradise 
are now members of any of these earth-born in- 
stitutions ; and right here upon earth there are 
tens of thousands of happy saints in robes of 
righteousness who have come out and now stand 
clear of creed-bound churches, and there are 
many thousands of others who are saved from 
sin and have never joined any sectarian institu- 
tion. Therefore all denominations put together, 
Roman, Greek, and Protestant, do not con- 
stitute the universal church, but are only sects. 



Is Rome tJie True Catholic Church f 95 

In holding membership in the one universal 
church and in no other, we stand clear of the 
sin of division and are members of no sect, but 
members of that church to which all the saved 
in heaven and earth belong. This is the one 
and only catholic church. The Church of Rome 
has long laid claim to the title, Catholic Church, 
but in doing so they have assumed a title that 
does not belong to them. They are a sect — a 
sect, too, that includes very few real Christians. 
The Church of God is catholic not only in that 
it includes all Christians, but also in that it is 
destined to fill the whole earth. "And that the 
kingdom, and power, and the greatness of the 
kingdom, under the whole heaven, may be given 
to the people of the saints of the most High" 
(Dan. 7:27). "But the stone that struck the 
statue, became a great mountain, and filled the 
whole earth" (Dan. 2:35). These texts have 
direct reference to the universality of the 
Church of God. 

Moreover, the religion of the Church of God 
will apply to all men of all nations. The Church 
of God gathers into her fold the rich and the 
poor, the educated and the illiterate, the high 
and the low ; in short, all classes of men. These, 
when saved, are on one common level of equality. 
Many of the religions of the world are local in 



96 Bomcm Catholicism 

their nature and apply only to certain classes. 
These have adopted peculiar customs, manners, 
and styles of dress. But Christianity, the re- 
ligion of the Church of God, is not local in 
any sense. It is the one universal religion, the 
one religion that will apply to all classes of 
men. It imposes no peculiar local customs of 
manners or dress. Thus we see again the 
catholicity of the Church of God. 

The Church of Rome can not be properly 
called catholic in regard to place, time, or 
faith. It was at first confined to the city of 
Rome, and afterwards to the Roman states. It 
is a particular and not a universal church. Their 
proper name should be Papists, because they 
follow the pope. 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME 

It has long been the claim of the Church of 
Rome that she is apostolic because she is one 
in faith and doctrine. Her doctors are bold in 
declaring that Protestant sects are not the true 
church, but heresies, because of their divided 
condition. I heartily agree that the church is 
one. She is "one body in Christ," "one family 
in heaven and earth," one household, one bride 
— "the Lamb's wife" — one "true tabernacle, 



The Unity of the Church of Rome 97 

which the Lord hath pitched, and not man." 
The burden of Christ's prayer recorded in the 
seventeenth chapter of John was that his church 
in all future ages "all may be one." Of the 
primitive church it is said, "And the multi- 
tude of believers had but one heart and one 
soul" (Acts 4:32). In the New Testament, 
divisions are condemned in the very strongest 
terms. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the 
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all 
speak the same thing, and that there be no 
schisms among you ; but that you be perfect in 
the same mind, and in the same judgment" 
(1 Cor. 1 : 10). Here is a direct prohibition of 
all schisms, or divisions, in the body of Christ. 
By the standard of truth, all divisions among 
Christians are sinful. "Now I beseech you, 
brethren, to mark them who make dissensions 
and offences contrary to the doctrine which you 
have learned, and avoid them. For they that 
are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their 
own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good 
words, seduce the hearts of the innocent" (Rom. 
16; 17, 18). "But there were also false proph- 
ets among the people, even as there shall be 
among you lying teachers, who shaU bring in 
sects of perdition" (2 Pet. 2:1-3). In Gal. 
5:20 "sects" (heresies, A. V.) are declared to 



98 Roman Cafholicism 

be the works of the flesh and are classified with 
idolatry, fornication, murders, drunkenness, and 
such like. 

But unity alone in a body of people is not 
sufiicient to prove that that body is the true 
church. It is necessary that unity be joined 
with faith and doctrine. Yet mere unity of 
faith and doctrine is not a mark of the true 
church ; it must be unity of true faith and true 
doctrine. "If you continue in my word, you 
shall be my disciples indeed" (John 8:31). 
Adhesion to the pope of Rome is no proper 
part of Christian unity. There is no Scriptural 
proof that the pope is the head of all Chris- 
tians and the one with whom they are to be in 
communion. Time and again Christ alone is 
declared to be the living head of his church. 

The New Testament basis of unity and that 
of the Roman church are in no sense identical. 
In the former, it is found in Christ alone. "That 
they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, 
and I in thee ; that they also may be one in us*' 
(John 17: 21). "For you are all one in Christ 
Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). "So we being many, are 
one body in Christ" (Rom. 12:5). "You are 
filled in him" (Col. 2: 10). "Ye are complete 
in him," A. V. 

Measured by the standard of all the fore- 



The Unity of the Church of Rome 99 

going scriptures, the Church of Rome is as truly 
a sect as the Protestant denominations which 
she condemns. In matters of faith and doctrine, 
she is as much divided as they. The same scrip- 
tures with which she condemns Protestantism 
will condemn her. Were we to listen to the 
pretentions of Romanists, we would suppose 
that their church was one in doctrine, while the 
fact is, it has always been divided by a multi- 
tude of controversies. The clergy among them 
are much divided in matters of religion. They 
have had several schools of theology differing 
as widely from each other as any of the Prot- 
estant sects. The Lombardic theology arose 
in 1150 A. D. This system taught that justi- 
fication arose from grace and works. The 
Scholastic theology arose about a hundred years 
later. They taught that justification and sal- 
vation are to be obtained by human works alone. 
There are a number of distinct sects of the 
Scholastics, differing from each other, such as 
Thomists, Scotists, Occamists, etc. Then, there 
is the Monastic theology, which teaches that 
salvation is to be expected through papal in- 
dulgence, from works of supererogation, and 
from will-worship. They teach that images are 
to be adored, that confidence is to be placed in 
saints, that pilgrimages to holy places are to be 



100 Raman CatJiolicism 

undertaken, monastic orders entered on, that 
funeral masses are to be bought. They intro- 
duce the legends of the saints and feigned mir- 
acles into their sermons. The fourth is the In- 
termediate theology. This system admits that 
we are justified by faith in Christ, springing 
from love. It concedes that by the merits of 
Christ alone we can be saved, but adds that good 
works are necessary to salvation. It admits 
that the mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory, but 
adds that it is applicatory, by which the merits 
of Christ are at length applied to us. Next 
in order is the Jesuitical theology. The sum 
of its doctrine on justification is, that habitual 
righteousness, or justice before God, consists 
of an infused habit, but actual justice in the 
merit of good works. Thus on justification the 
schools of theology in the Church of Rome dif- 
fer as widely as do the Protestant sects. In 
the light of 1 Cor. 1:10, where Paul enjoins 
that we "all speak the same thing," the Church 
of Rome stands condemned. 

The Franciscans and Dominicans are ever 
contending about several points of doctrine and 
discipline. The Scotists and Thomists have 
been always at war. The Jesuites were contin- 
ually at variance with the Dominicans, Benedic- 
tines, and other orders ; and almost ruined them, 



The Unity of the Church of Rome 101 

especially the Benedictines. The theological 
colleges debate concerning almost all the doc- 
trines of Christianity. Ever since the time of 
the Council of Trent controversies of great im- 
portance have arisen, which divided and still 
divide the Church of Rome. 

Considerable dissension exists in the Church 
of Rome respecting their rule of faith. The 
true source, or foundation, of divinity is the 
Word of God alone, as it is contained in the 
canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. 
The Council of Trent adds Tobias, Judith, 
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two Maccabees. 
But Cardinal Cajetan follows Jerome, who re- 
jects them from the canon. Arias Montanus, 
whom Gregory XIII calls his own son, in his 
Hebrew Bible, with interlineary translation, ap- 
proved by the Louvain doctors, says concern- 
ing the apocryphal books: "The orthodox 
church, following the Hebrew canon, numbers 
these among the apocryphal books." Antoninus, 
archbishop of Florence, referring to the senti- 
ment of Jerome, that the apocryphal books were 
inferior to the canonical, says: "And the same 
also saith Thomas Aquinas and Nicholaus de 
Lyra on Tobias, namely, that these are not of 
so great authority that they can be efficaciously 
used in argument in those things which concern 
faith, as the other books of Holy Scripture." 



102 Roman Catholicism 

The fearful schisms which took place in the 
popedom, the boasted seat of unity, for the 
space of fifty-one years, namely, from 1378 to 
1429, and afterward between Eugenius IV and 
the Council of Constance, is a plain proof of the 
want of that unity of which Romanists so loudly 
boast. 

At the commencement of the popedom of Clement V, 
in 1305, the seat of the pope was removed to Avignon 
in Prance, where it remained for seventy years. At 
the death of Gregory XI, March 27, 1378, the citizens 
of Eome, fearing lest a Frenchman should be chosen, 
came tumultuously to the conclave, and demanded that 
an Italian should be made pope. The cardinals, ter- 
rified by this uproar, chose Urban VI, a Neapolitan. 
Some of the cardinals withdrew from Kome to Fondi, 
where they elected to the pontificate Eobert, count of 
Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII, and de- 
clared the election of Urban unlawful, because they 
were compelled by violence to the choice. 

W|hich of these two was the lawful pope is to this 
day doubtful; nor will the records and writings al- 
leged by the contending parties decide the controversy. 
Urban remained at Rome, a.nd Clement took up his 
residence at Avignon. Thus the union of the Latin 
church under one head was destroyed, and succeeded by 
that deplorable schism, known by the name of the 
Great Western Schism. '^ Christendom was divided, *' 
says Du Pin, the Roman Catholic: "divers kingdoms 
continued under the obedience of Urban, and others 
acknowledged Clement. This caused a bloody schism 
in the church." 

On the death of Clement, which happened in the year 
1394, Benedict XIII was chosen pope by the French 
cardinals. Though before his election he took an oath 



The Unity of the Church of Rome 103 

to vacate the popedom, provided the cardinals desired 
it, yet after he was chosen he refused to do so at their 
request, and thus perjured himself. The GaUican 
church, displeased at the proceedings on both sides, 
withdrew obedience from both popes in 1397, at a coun- 
cil held at Paris. 

On the death of Boniface, the Roman party, in 1404, 
chose Innocent VII, who was succeeded in 1406 by 
Gregory XII. 

The cardinals of Gregory and eight or nine of the 
cardinals of Benedict called a council, to meet at 
Pisa. The council excommunicated both these popes 
for schism, perjury, and contumacy, and elected Alex- 
ander V. But the decrees of the council were treated 
with contempt by both the pontiffs, each of whom per- 
formed the functions of the papacy in his respective 
bounds. Thus the Western church was divided into 
three great factions by three contending popes, who 
loaded each other with curses, calumnies, and excom- 
munications. 

The great end in view by the Councils of Constance 
and Basil was the reformation of the church in its 
head and members. The popes were looked upon as 
the head, and the bishops, priests, and monks as the 
members, both being exceedingly corrupt. Martin op- 
posed the reformation to the utmost. However, five 
years after the Council of Constance, in consequence of 
frequent remonstrances by pious persons, he called a 
council to meet at Pavia, whence it was removed to 
Sienna, and thence to Basil. He died about the time 
on which the council met. The council met July 23, 
1431, and seriously went about the work of reforma- 
tion. Eugenius IV opposed reform by every possible 
means. For though he at first approved of the as- 
sembling of the council, he afterward opposed it. The 
council deposed Eugenius, who in 1438 collected an- 
other council at Ferrara, which was afterward trans- 



104 Roman CatJiolicism 

ferred to Florence, and at the second session thundered 
out an excommunication against the fathers assembled 
at Basil, and afterward sentenced them to hell and 
damnation, and declared their acts null and their 
proceedings unlawful. The council, in 1439, chose 
Felix V pope in the place of Eugenius. By this means 
that deplorable schism which formerly rent the church 
was again revived, with additional aggravations; for 
the contest was not only between two rival' popes, but 
also between the contending councils of Basil and 
Florence. 

The foregoing accounts of these papal schisms were 
taken principally from Du Pin 's Ecclesiastical History. 

The calamities of these times are indescribable. The 
church had two or three different heads at the same 
time; each foiming plots and pronouncing curses upon 
his competitors and followers. The princes of Europe 
were involved in wars on this account. Many lost 
their lives and fortunes in the struggle. In most 
places, all sense of religion was lost; and profligacy 
of manners prevailed almost everywhere, both among 
clergy and laity. — Delineation of Eoman Catholicism. 

The limits and extent of the pope's power 
and jurisdiction is a subject warmly debated in 
the Church of Rome. On the subject of the 
pope's authority, Bellarmine, the great writer 
and defender of Rome, definitely points out four 
varieties of opinion in the church. The first 
he pronounces heretical; the second, "border- 
ing on heresy"; the third, "probable"; and the 
fourth, "most certain." — Bellarmine: De Pon- 
tif. Lib, IV, c. 2, Gerhard: sec. 2^2. 

On the subject as to where the infallibility 



TJie Unity of tJie Church of Rome 105 

in the church lies, whether in the pope, general 
councils, etc., there is a great variety of opinion 
among the Roman clergy. A careful reading of 
their standard writings clearly reveals this. 

The church has been much divided respect- 
ing the doctrines of grace, predestination, and 
original sin. The Dominicans, Augustins, and 
Jansenists, with several other doctors, in the 
main adopt the doctrine of Augustine (the view 
also held by Calvin) on these subjects. The 
Jesuits maintain the opposite side of the ques- 
tion; or they are the Arminians of the Romish 
church, who embrace also a considerable por- 
tion of Pelagius's creed, especially respecting 
the depravity of our nature and human liberty. 
With respect to the administration of the sac- 
raments and their effects, especially those of 
penance and the eucharist, there is a wide dif- 
ference of opinion between the Jesuits and other 
theological branches. The supremacy of the 
pope is a subject of considerable controversy 
among the Roman doctors. 

If space would permit, I could prove from 
their own writers that on nearly all the vital 
points of faith, doctrine, and practise, they are 
greatly at variance among themselves. From 
the foregoing any candid reader can readily 
see that the Church of Rome is as much in a 



106 Boman Catholicism 

state of discord as the Protestant sects, which 
she denounces as pernicious heresies. If the 
divided condition of Protestantism constitutes 
it heretical, then for the same reason the Church 
of Rome must be heretical. The only unity 
existing in the Roman church is the acknowl- 
edgement of the supremacy of their pontiff. 



INFANT DAMNATION 

The Council of Florence on the effects of bap- 
tism decided: 

The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all 
original and actual gnilt; also of all punishment which 
is owed for any guilt. 

That the law of baptism, as established by our law, 
extends to all', insomuch that, unless they are re- 
generated through the grace of baptism, be their par- 
ents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal 
misery and everlasting destruction. — Catechism, pp. 
162, 163. 

If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children 
inherit the stain of primeval guilt, is there not still 
stronger reason to conclude that the efficacious merits 
of Christ the Lord must impart to them that justice 
and those graces which will give them a title to reign 
in eternal life? This happy consummation baptism 
alone can accomplish. — Id., p. 163. 

Infants, unless baptized, can not enter heaven. — 
Id., p. 164. 

Whosoever shall affirm that baptism is indifferent, 
. . . that is, not necessary to salvation; let him 
be accursed. — Council of Trent, canon 4. 



Infami Damnation 107 

Whosoever shall deny that the guilt of original sin 
is remitted by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, be- 
stowed in baptism; ... let him be accursed.- — Id., 
canon 5. 

Baptism washes away the stains of sin. — Catechism 
of the Council of Trent, p. 152. 

The above sets forth the teaching of the 
Church of Rome on this important point. Chil- 
dren without baptism "are born to eternal mis- 
ery and everlasting destruction." They "can 
not enter heaven." Against this cruel, unrea- 
sonable doctrine I present the following facts: 

First, There is absolutely not one text in 
the New Testament that teaches infant bap- 
tism. It is purely a rite invented by the Romish 
church during the Dark Ages. 

Second, Infants are in a state of innocency 
before God, having never transgressed his law. 
Not being transgressors, they can not come 
under condemnation nor guilt. Jesus said, "Of 
such is the kingdom of God." He also taught 
that conversion restores the adult to the child- 
hood state of innocency (see Matt. 18: 1-3). 

Third, Though infants are born into the 
world in possession of a sinful nature (Psa. 
50:7 — 51:5, A. V.), they are not responsible 
for this, because it came through the fall of 
Adam (Rom. 5:12). Infants do not become 
responsible to God until they are old enough to 



108 Roman Catholicism 

receive a knowledge of the commandments of 
God. Paul, in speaking with reference to this 
point, said, "I lived some time without the law. 
But when the commandment came, sin revived, 
and I died" (Rom. 7 : 9, 10) . The time when he 
lived without the law was the state of innocent 
childhood. When he became old enough to re- 
ceive a knowledge of the law, he became respon- 
sible to God, and then died a spiritual death; 
that is, he was cut off from favor with God and 
came under guilt. As to those who die in in- 
fancy, the blood of Christ has atoned for them, 
and they are passive through it, and thus they 
enter pure into the presence of the Lord. "Christ 
died for all." "He tasted death for every man." 
From all this we rightly conclude that all chil- 
dren who die in infancy are saved. 

Fourth, The Bible plainly teaches that the 
Holy Spirit may be given before baptism, as in 
the case of Cornelius and his friends (Acts 10). 
Then we rightly conclude that eternal life may 
be had without water baptism. 

Fifth, If all children dying without baptism 
are lost, then it follows that an infinite number 
of innocent babes are barred out of heaven for- 
ever, without their fault. This is absurd in the 
extreme. 

Sixth, This teaching of Rome, which has been 



Transuhstantiation 109 

copied by a few Protestant sects, makes the 
salvation of mankind dependent upon an ex- 
ternal rite administered by man. According 
to the Bible, no external rite administered by 
any one upon another, can cleanse from sin. 
The blood of Christ is the only element of 
cleansing. It is man's moral nature that is af- 
fected by sin, and only a moral cleansing can 
fit him for heaven. This the blood of Christ 
alone can effect. 

Seventh, The Romish doctrine of infant 
damnation is cruel, inhuman, and contrary to 
the law of a just and merciful God. It virtually 
debars from heaven all the myriads of innocent 
children who did not happen to be born of 
Romish parents, and were not favored (?) with 
a few drops of water administered by one of 
their priests. 

May God help all honest men and women to 
renounce such doctrine and teaching and to 
embrace the plain truth of the gospel instead. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

The words, "This is my body" ; "This is my 
blood" ; employed by our Savior when he in- 
stituted the Lord's Supper, have been used by 
thousands of religionists as the foundation for 



110 Eoman CatJiolicism 

much erroneous teaching and rank heresy. Upon 
them is built the CathoHc absurdity of transub- 
stantiation, and also the Protestant idea of for- 
giveness of sins through the sacrament. It is 
our object in this chapter to set the matter 
forth in its true light and at the same time to 
refute the erroneous ideas handed down to the 
people from the dark ages of superstition and 
apostate night. 

I insert the following from the Catholic cate- 
chism: 

Q. What is the holy eucharist? 

A. It is a sacrament, which contains the body and 
blood, the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, under the 
form and appearances of bread and wine. 

Q. Is it not bread and wine which is first put upon 
the altar for the celebration of the mass? 

A. Yes; it is always bread and wine till the priest 
pronounces the words of consecration during the mass. 

Q. What happens by these words? 

A. The bread is changed into the body of Jesus 
Christ, and the wine into his blood. 

Q. What is this change called? 

A. It is called Transubstantiation; that is to say, 
a change of one substance into another. 

The Council of Trent, at its thirteenth ses- 
sion, passed the following canons, which are 
supremely authoritative with Roman Catholics : 

Canon 1. Whosoever shall deny, that in the most 
holy sacrament of the eucharist there are truly, really, 
and substantially contained the body and the blood of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divin- 



Transuhstantiation 111 

ity, and consequently Christ entire; but shall affirm 
that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, 
or by his power; let him be accursed. 

2. Whosoever shall affirm that in the most holy 
sacrament of the eucharist there remains the sub- 
stance of bread and wine, together with the body and 
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that 
wonderful and peculiar conversion of the whole sub- 
stance of the bread into his body, and of the whole 
substance of the wine into his blood, the species only 
of bread and wine remaining, which conversion the 
Catholic Church most fitly terms transubstantiation; let 
him be accursed. 

X 3. Whosoever shall deny that Christ entire is con- 
tained in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist 
under each species, and under every part of each spe- 
cies when they are separated; let him be accursed. 

4. Whosoever shall affirm that the body and blood of 
our Lord Jesus Christ are not present in the admirable 
eucharist, as soon as the consecration is performed, 
. . . and that the true body of our Lord does not 
remain in the hosts or consecrated morsels which are 
reserved or left after communion; let him be accursed. 

In the third chapter of the same session the 
council declares: 

Immediately after the consecration, the true body of 
our Lord, and his true blood, together with his soul and 
divinity, do exist under the species of the bread and 
wine. . . . For Christ, whole and entire, exists 
under the species of bread, and in every particle 
thereof, and under the species, of wine in all its parts. 
The eucharist also contains Christ our Lord, the true 
grace, the source of all heavenly gifts. — Catechism of 
the Council of Trent, p. 194. 

Christ whole and entire is contained in the sacra- 
ment. — ^p. 212. 



112 Boman Catholicism 

The decision of the Council of Trent further 
states, "that the body, blood, bones, sinews, etc., 
of Christ, his soul and Godhead, are contained 
in either the bread or the wine; and after the 
words of consecration, it is the very God him- 
self." This in brief sets forth their doctrine, 
for I have quoted verbatim from their own 
standard works. 

In the first place, this doctrine and practise 
is superstitious. The Catholic priest takes a 
part of something that is grown in the field, that 
the farmers' horses, cows, swine, and chickens 
eat, that which constitutes a portion of our com- 
mon food — bread baked from the flour of wheat 
— and lays it upon the altar, pronounces the 
words of consecration over it; and, according 
to Roman Catholic doctrine, suddenly it be- 
comes God, and contains the body, soul, blood, 
bones, and sinews of Jesus Christ. He then 
kneels before it and worships it, after which he 
holds it between his two fingers before the con- 
gregation, saying in Latin, "Behold the Lamb 
of God which taketh away the sin of the world." 
Then all the congregation bow their heads and 
worship it. There never was any mystery in 
any religion, pagan or Mohammedan, more un- 
intelligible, more inconceivable, and more 
against both reason and sense as this is. 



Transubstantiation 113 

The Romanists eat their god. The rankest 
pagan in the world would not do such a thing. 
The Catholics' god is a piece of bread; and, to 
add to their idolatry and blasphemy, they call 
that bread, "the very Christ." It virtually 
makes the Catholics to be worshipers of a piece 
of bread, for that is all it is. "Jesus took bread, 
and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the 
disciples, and said, Take, eat." What Christ 
took he broke, what he broke he blessed, and 
what he blessed was distributed, and what was 
distributed was eaten. Bread, then, was taken 
by Christ, therefore bread, and not flesh was 
eaten. The same is true of the cup which con- 
tained the fruit of the vine. Paul makes this 
clear in 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17: "The bread, which 
we break, is it not the partaking of the body 
of the Lord.? . . . For we . . . all par- 
take of one bread." "For as often as you shall 
eat this bread, and drink the chalice [cup, 
A. v.], ye do show the death of the Lord, until 
he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this 
BREAD, or drink the chalice [cup] of the Lord, 
unwfjrthily, shall be guilty of the body and of 
the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove 
himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and 
drink of the chalice [cup]" (1 Cor. 11 : 26-28). 

The Lutherans hold that Christ's presence 



114 Raman Catholicism 

is in the communion. They differ from the 
Catholics in that they do not believe it is the 
literal body and blood of Christ that they eat. 
The Lutheran doctrine is as follows : The bread 
and the wine still remain such, but the Word 
connects with the bread and the wine the pres- 
ence of Christ himself; and those who partake 
of the communion, partake spiritually of the 
body and the blood of the Lord, and in so do- 
ing, receive remission of past sins. 

Most sects teach that when the bread and the 
wine are consecrated, or blessed in prayer, there 
is a supernatural presence of Christ in them, and 
that special blessing is conferred on the par- 
takers. "Jesus took bread, and blessed, and 
broke : and gave to his disciples" ( Matt. 26 :26 ; 
Mark 14:22). It is held that by the term 
"blessed" is meant that Jesus somehow changed 
the bread, consecrated it, or connected his 
spiritual presence therewith, and that in par- 
taking of it grace is ministered. Thus, about 
all sects hold that the sacrament is a special 
means of grace. 

Beloved reader, this is attaching more to the 
communion than the Lord ever intended. There 
is no foundation in the Scriptures for such 
notions. The word "blessed" in the above texts 
means no more than that Christ gave thanks. 



Transiihstantiation 115 

Matthew and Mark say that he blessed the 
bread; while Luke, recording the same event, 
says, "And taking bread, he gave thanks, and 
brake" (Luke 22: 19). Many Greek copies of 
Matt. 26 : 26 read ''gave thanks,''^ instead of 
"blessed." "The Lord Jesus, the same night in 
which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving 
thank Sy broke, and said. Take ye, and eat" 
(1 Cor. 11:23, 24). "Jesus took bread, and 
blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples" 
(Matt. 26: 26). "Jesus taking a loaf, and giv- 
ing praise, he broke, and gave it to the disciples" 
(Matt. 26:26, Emphatic Diaglott). This 
clearly disproves the idea that Jesus conferred 
any special virtue to the communion bread. He 
simply broke a loaf and "gave thanks." "In 
like manner also the chalice [cup]." "And 
taking the chalice [cup], he gave thanks, and 
gave to them" (1 Cor. 11:25; Matt. 26:27). 
It remained bread in his hands after he had given 
thanks. "Jesus took bread," "gave thanks, and 
brake," and "gave to his disciples." After 
thanks has been offered, it is only "bread, which 
we break" ( 1 Cor. 10:16). This fact is further 
proved by Christ's own words: "I will drink 
no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day 
when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of 
God" (Mark 14:25). The thing, then, that 



116 Roman Catholicism 

we drink is "the fruit of the vine." Bread and 
wine constitute the communion, or Lord's Sup- 
per — ^just simply bread and the juice of the 
grape. 

But why did Christ say, "This is my body; 
this is my blood" .^^ I answer. He spoke by 
figure. The bread and the wine are symbols, or 
emblems, of the broken body and the shed blood 
of Christ. It is the height of folly to put any 
other construction upon Christ's words. He 
could not have meant his literal body, for the 
following reasons : 

1. At the time when he spoke these words, he 
was alive and in the presence of the disciples. 
It is impossible that they could have believed 
they were eating the body of Christ when they 
saw that body before them. He held the broken 
loaf in his own hands. With their eyes they 
looked upon his fleshly body at the table with 
them. How could they have believed that they 
were drinking his blood, when, as they knew, it 
was still in his veins? Incredible! 

2. How could they have been persuaded to 
drink the literal blood of their Lord or to eat 
human flesh — to swallow their Lord and Master 
down their throats ? Such teaching is ridiculous 
in the extreme. 

3. It could not have been his body broken and 



Transuhstantiation 117 

his shed blood that they partook of; for he 
was at that very time alive before them. His 
body had not yet been given, sacrificed, or 
broken, for them. This shows that it is impos- 
sible to take these words of our Savior literally. 
Catholics say that the bread and the wine con- 
tain the body, soul, blood, and divinity of 
Christ. How, I ask, could the loaf of bread in 
Jesus' hand have contained his blood and soul, 
when his blood was yet coursing through his 
veins and not one drop had been shed? 

4. Their own sense of taste would have con- 
vinced them that it was not literal flesh that 
they were eating nor literal blood that they 
were drinking. 

Our Savior spoke by figures ; and such figures 
as are very common. The bread and the wine 
are symbols, or emblems, of the broken body 
and shed blood of Christ. How can it be other- 
wise? When Christ instituted this ordinance he 
held a loaf in his hand. He blessed it, broke it, 
and gave it to the disciples. He said. This is 
my body, broken, or sacrificed, for you. At this 
very moment his real body — bones, sinews, blood, 
and soul — the Christ whole and entire, stood be- 
fore them. Their eyes beheld him. His real 
body was not yet broken. Not a drop of his 
blood was at that time shed. Holding the bread 



118 Roman Catholicism 

in his hands, he said, This is my body. Of the 
cup he said, This is my blood which shall be 
shed for many. If, therefore, we are to under- 
stand the words of Christ literally, as Roman 
Catholics would have us, we must admit one of 
the grossest contradictions in the world. We 
must believe that Christ's body was both alive 
and dead at the same time. Is it possible that 
the disciples understood that they were not eat- 
ing bread, but really eating flesh, and really 
drinking blood — the flesh and blood of Christ's 
dead body — when as yet he was not crucified, 
and his living person was there with them, vis- 
ible to their natural eyes.^^ Incredible! Pre- 
posterous! If they did not literally eat the 
flesh, bones, and sinews, and swallow down the 
blood and soul of Christ, neither do we today. 
Mark well this fact, for it forever demolishes 
the superstitious and unreasonable Catholic doc- 
trine of transubstantiation. 

Wine, by way of figure, is called "the blood 
of the grape" (Gen. 49:11; Deut. 32:14). 
How fittingly, then, it represents the blood of 
Christ ! But some one will ask, "Is the sign of 
a thing ever called by the same name as the 
thing it signifies.?" Certainly. It is so in our 
common language. In my room is an enlarged 
picture of my father and mother, who are now 



Transubstantiation 119 

dead. Pointing to the picture, I say to a friend, 
"This is my father and mother." Who would 
be so stupid as to believe the picture to be 
really my father and mother — their actual body, 
blood, and soul? Who would believe them to be 
literally or even spiritually.'* The picture is 
only a representation of them. I say of a map 
hanging on the wall, "This is the United 
States." Who would understand it to be the 
real country itself .^^ Nobody. It is only a 
representation of it. Just so, Jesus took a loaf 
of bread, broke it, and said, "This is my body." 
That bread was no more his spiritual or literal 
body than the portrait on the wall is the real 
persons themselves. The bread simply repre- 
sented his body. 

The very mode of expression Jesus used is 
the common language of Scripture. I will here 
cite a few examples of its use. "The seven beau- 
tiful kine, and the seven full ears, are seven 
years" (Gen. 41:26). While it is plainly said 
that seven kine and seven ears are seven years, 
it is clear that the meaning is that the kine and 
the ears represent years. Again, "The three 
branches are yet three days" (Gen. 40:12). 
"The three baskets are yet three days" (v. 18). 
The branches and the baskets represent days. 
"Thou therefore art the head of gold" (Dan. 



120 Roman Catholicism 

2: 38). That is, the head of gold represented 
Nebuchadnezzar and the great kingdom of Baby- 
lon. "These four great beasts are four king- 
doms, which shall arise out of the earth" (Dan. 
7: 17). Who believes that real beasts were once 
kings of the earth? Yet the language is as 
positive as Jesus' language in the institution of 
the communion. "These four great beasts are 
four kingdoms." The beasts represent king- 
doms. "The ten horns" "shall be ten kings" 
(Dan. 7: 24). "The rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 
10: 4). "The seven stars are the angels of the 
seven churches. And the seven candlesticks are 
the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). "The seven 
heads are seven mountains" (Rev. 17:9). "I 
am the vine, you the branches" (John 15:5). 
In all these the sign has the name of the thing 
signified. Parallel with all the above figures, 
are Christ's words when he instituted the Com- 
munion Supper. The bread, when broken, rep- 
resents the broken body of our Savior; the 
blood of grapes represents his shed blood. The 
whole is a remembrancer of his death. 

Again, the body of Christ is not now a nat- 
ural body, but a spiritual body. This spiritual, 
glorified body is now in heaven at the right hand 
of the Father. Christ is now wholly an infinite 
being. His body can not be broken. There is 



Transuhstantiation 121 

no more blood to shed. We can not with our 
literal mouths eat an infinite being. The Catho- 
lics would have us believe that Christ, who is an 
infinite being with a glorified body in heaven, 
has at the same time a physical being with nat- 
ural flesh, bones, sinews, and blood, with his 
soul, here on earth; and this latter being they 
declare is "Christ, whole and entire." The 
priest himself makes this earthly Christ, by the 
words of consecration, out of a piece of bread 
and a cup of grape- juice. After making what 
they are pleased to term "the very God him- 
self," and worshiping him, they put him in their 
mouths, chew him between their teeth, and swal- 
low him into their stomachs. In this we boldly 
charge them with a practise that is blasphemous. 
Peter Dens, who is a standard Catholic 
author and a teacher of theology, says, "A 
mouse or a dog, eating the sacramental species, 
does not eat them sacramentally ; yet this proves 
that the body of Christ does not cease to exist 
under the species as long as they exist.'' — Cate- 
chism of the Council of Trent, No. 50; p. 34-7. 
This virtually declares that a mouse or a dog 
eating the consecrated bread also eats the body, 
blood, bones, and sinews, soul and divinity of 
Christ, but not sacramentally as man eats it. 
This author further says that if "a sick person 



122 Roman Cafholicism 

vomits the sacred host," "they are to be rev- 
erently collected, and afterward received." "But 
if nausea prevent that, then they are cautiously 
separated from the filth, and deposited in some 
sacred place, and afterwards buried in the grave- 
yard."— 7^^., No. 65; p. 373. Surely this is 
enough to show the blasphemous and sacrile- 
gious practises of this apostate church. 

The story is told of a certain Protestant lady 
who married a Catholic. The priest paid them 
frequent visits, endeavoring to persuade her to 
accept the Catholic doctrine and j oin the church 
of her husband. Among the religious topics 
that she frequently discussed with him was this 
doctrine of transubstantiation. At length the 
husband fell sick, and during his affliction the 
priest recommended the holy sacrament. He 
requested the wife to prepare bread and wine 
for the solemn occasion, which she did. On pre- 
senting them to the priest, she said: 

"These, sir, you wish me to understand, will 
be changed into the real body and blood of 
Christ after you have consecrated them.?" 

"Most certainly," he replied. 

"Then sir," she rejoined, "it will not be pos- 
sible after the consecration for them to do any 
harm to the worthy partaker." 

"Assuredly not," answered the priest. "They 



Mass as Observed hy Catholics 123 

can not do harm to the worthy receivers, but 
must communicate great good." 

The ceremony was proceeded in; the bread 
and wine were consecrated, and the priest was 
about to take and eat the bread and then give 
the same to her husband, when the lady inter- 
rupted him, saying: 

"I mixed a little arsenic with the bread, but 
as it is now changed into the real body of Christ, 
it can not, of course, do you any harm." 

The priest's faith was not sufficiently firm, 
however, to enable him to eat it. Confused, 
ashamed, and irritated, he left the house, and 
never more ventured to enforce on that lady the 
absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. 



MASS, AS OBSERVED IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC 
CHURCH 

The Church of Rome holds that the sacrifice 
of mass is a propitiatory offering of Christ, 
the same as his offering upon the cross of Cal- 
vary; that in it they offer up Christ to God 
as a propitiatory sacrifice for both the living 
and the dead, and in as true a manner as he was 
offered on the cross at Jerusalem ; and that it is 
equally meritorious with his first sacrifice. Here 
are three canons of the Council of Trent: 



124 Roman CatJiolicism 

Canon 1. If any one shall say, that a true and 
proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the mass; or 
that what is to be offered is nothing else than giving 
Christ to us to eat; let him be accursed. 

2. If any one shall say, that by these words, *'Do 
this for a commemoration of me," Christ did not ap- 
point his apostles priests, or did not ordain that they 
and other priests should offer his body and blood; let 
him be accursed. 

3. If any one shall say, that the mass is only a 
service of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare com- 
memoration of the sacrifice made on the cross, and not 
a propitiatory offering; or that it only benefits him 
who receives it, and ought not to be offered for the 
living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfac- 
tions, and other necessities; let him be accursed. 

Catholics contend that Christ is offered daily 
in the mass sacrifice. This has no foundation 
whatever in Scripture, and is directly contrary 
to it. Nothing that Christ said in connection 
with the institution of the Lord's Supper has 
any reference whatever to the sacrifice of mass. 
The same is true of what Paul says in 1 Corinth- 
ians 11. Not in a single text that has the least 
bearing on the subject is there a hint that 
Christ would offer up himself, or ever command- 
ed his church to offer him up to God the 
Father, in this ordinance. "Did our Savior, at 
his last supper, offer up himself, body, soul, and 
divinity, a true sacrifice to God, or did he not.'* 
If he did not, how shall we dare to offer him up 
in our observance of the rite.'' If he did, as 



Mass as Observed hy Catholics 125 

the Roman Catholics say he did, to what pur- 
pose did he afterwards offer himself upon the 
cross?" 

In their pretended offering up of Christ in 
the sacrifice of mass, the priests of the Romish 
church squarely contradict the New Testament 
teaching. "For by on€ oblation [offering, 
A. v.] he hath perfected forever them that are 
sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). "Nor yet that he 
should offer himself often, as the high priest 
entereth into the holies, every year with the 
blood of others ; For then he ought to have suf- 
fered often from the beginning of the world: 
but now once at the end of ages, he hath ap- 
peared for the destruction of sin, by the sacri- 
fice of himself. ... So Christ was offered 
once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. 9: 
25-28). There was but one offering of Christ 
for remission. He was never to be offered as a 
propitiatory offering but once; yet in direct 
contradiction to this fact, the priests of Rome 
claim to offer him up a thousand times every 
day. 

It was not needful that he should "offer him- 
self often . . . for then he ought to have suf- 
fered often" (Heb. 9 : 25, 26). "Without shed- 
ding of blood there is no remission" (Heb. 9: 
22). From this we learn that Christ can not 



126 Roman Catholicism 

be offered without suffering. If the sacrifice be 
true, then Christ must often suffer; for if he 
should offer himself often, then must he have 
often suffered. If the Catholic mass is real, 
Romanists put Christ to death every day, and 
that in thousands of different places. Thus 
they cause him to pass through untold suffer- 
ings. This practise virtually makes them as 
guilty of crucifying the Lord of glory as were 
the Jews and Roman soldiers. Since the Romish 
claim is that in the mass a propitiatory offering 
and sacrifice of Christ is made, "for the living 
and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfac- 
tions, and other necessities," and since Paul de- 
clares that "without shedding of blood there is 
no remission" of sins, it follows either that the 
sacrifice of the mass must be a bloody sacrifice, 
and so Christ's blood must be shed as often as 
he is offered in the mass; or else it is no pro- 
pitiatory offering, and grants no one remission 
of sins, the very thing for which they claim the 
sacrifice of mass is made. 

In one breath they deny a bloody sacrifice in 
the mass, and in the other they say that in every 
crumb of the bread, and in every drop of the 
wine, "there is contained the blood, as well as 
the body, soul, and divinity of Christ" ; and who- 
soever does not believe these two contradictory 



Mass as Ohserved hy Catholics 127 

doctrines is cursed by the Council of Trent. 

The sacrifice of mass is utterly and forever 
overthrown by the positive words of Scripture : 
"By one oblation he hath perfected forever them 
that are sanctified"; and "where there is a re- 
mission of these, there is no more an oblation 
for sin" (Heb. 10: 18). The fact is, when he 
had by himself purged our sins, and this by "one 
offering," he ascended into heaven, where he is 
always living to make intercession for us." Thus 
he "is able also to save them forever that come 
to God by him." After we are saved through 
the one sacrifice Christ made on the cross, "there 
is no conscience of sin any longer." Our sins 
are remembered no more. Grace is given to live 
ever after above sin. For, says the apostle, 
"we know that whosoever is bom of God, sin- 
neth not" ( 1 John 5:18). "Whosoever abideth 
in him, sinneth not" ( 1 John 3:6). Since the 
Romanists have never found this full salvation 
in Christ Jesus, they have invented the ridicu- 
lous sacrifice of the mass. 

The following extract from the Roman Mis- 
sal sets forth the shocking profanation and 
superstition of this practise. 

If, after consecration, a gnat, a spider, or any such 
thing, fall into the chalice, and if it produces nausea 
to the priest, let him draw it out and wash it with the 
wine; and when mass is concluded, let him burn it, 



128 Boman Catholicism 

and let him. throw the ashes and the washings into a 
sacred place. But if there is no nausea, and he fears 
none, let him swallow it with the blood. 

If poisonous matter should fall into the cup, or 
anything that would cause a vomiting, let the con- 
secrated wine be put in another cup, and other wine 
with water be again placed to be consecrated; and 
when mass is finished, let the blood be poured on linen 
cloth or tow, and remain till dry, and then let the 
two be burned, and the ashes cast into a holy place. 

If any poisonous matter touches the consecrated host, 
then let the priest consecrate another and receive it in 
the proper manner, and let the poisoned one be pre- 
served in a box, in a separated place, until the species 
be corrupted, and then let the corrupted species be 
thrown into a sacred place. 

If in winter the blood be frozen in the cup, put 
warm clothes about the cup; if that will not do, let 
it be put into boiling water near the altar till it be 
melted, taking care it does not come into the cup. 

If any of the blood of Christ fall on the ground 
or table by negligence, it must be licked up with the 
tongue, the place must be thoroughly scraped, and 
the scrapings burned; but the ashes must be buried in 
holy ground. 

If the priest vomit the eucharist, and the species 
appear entire, they must be reverently swallowed un- 
less nausea prevent; and in that case the consecrated 
species must be cautiously separated from the vomit, 
and laid by in some sacred place until they be cor- 
rupted, and afterward they are to be thrown into a 
sacred place; but if the species do not appear, the 
vomit must be burned, and the ashes thrown into a 
sacred place. 



Idolatrous Worship 129 

IDOLATROUS WORSHIP 

- We have already shown the absurdity of the 
doctrine of transubstantiation, and the blas- 
phemous character of the sacrifice of mass. We 
now come to consider the idolatrous worship 
connected therewith. The Catholic authorities 
admit that "it is eating of the very God we wor- 
ship." The priest takes a part of a substance 
which the farmer grows in his field, lays it upon 
an altar, pronounces a few words of consecra- 
tion over it, and suddenly it turns into a god! 
There is no bread nor wine left on the table 
after the words of consecration. It is now 
Christ — "Christ entire," "the body, soul, blood, 
and divinity of Jesus Christ." Next, the priest 
falls before it and worships it, then holds it 
up before his congregation, saying to them in 
Latin, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh 
away the sin of the world." Then they all bow 
their heads in reverence and worship. After 
this the priest and people eat it — ^chew it be- 
tween their teeth and swallow it down into their 
stomachs. In all history, who ever heard of 
even the pagans making a god, then worshiping 
it, and afterwards eating it? But this is the 
Catholics' practise, and they can not deny it. 
The devotees of the Church of Rome worship 
the wafer in the sacrament with the same honor 



130 Roman Catholicism 

with which they worship God. This is vir- 
tually worshiping a piece of bread. Papal Rome 
is but a continuation of pagan Rome, under a 
Christian gixrb. The papal beast of Revelation 
13 is the offspring of the great red dragon — 
pagan Rome — of Revelation 12. 

After the Council of Trent plainly declared 
that after the consecration the bread and the 
wine in the sacrament are changed "into our 
Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man," it de- 
cided : 

There is, therefore, no room to doubt but that the 
faithful of Christ should adore his most holy sacrament 
with the highest worship due to the true God, ac- 
cording to the constant usage of the Catholic Church. 
Nor is it the less to be thus adored, that it was in- 
stituted by Christ our Lord to be eaten. — Third Sess. 
XIII, c. 5, can. 6. 

If any one shall say that this holy sacrament should 
not be adored, nor solemnly carried about in proces- 
sion, nor held up publicly for the people to adore it 
. . . let him be accursed. — Id. 

From the above we see that Romanists wor- 
ship the round wafer not only at the time of 
receiving it, but also when it is carried about in 
the streets. At the sound of a bell all persons 
are admonished to worship the passing god. 
Those who refuse to do so, or dare to say the 
practise is wrong, are pronounced accursed by 
the great Roman Council of Trent. Thus under 
the threat of a curse, the Romanists are com- 



Idolatrous Worship 131 

manded to offer supreme adoration to a piece of 
bread, which a mouse may run off with and eat, 
or, as the Roman Missal says, "The priest him- 
self may eat and vomit, and then eat again." 
This is rank idolatry, and really worse than 
can be found among the pagans. 

The primitive church had no such practise. 
It was not until 1215 A. D. that the Council of 
Lateran, under Pope Innocent III, made tran- 
substantiation an article of faith. In the year 
1216 A. D. Pope Honorious ordered that the 
priest, at a certain part of the mass service, 
"should elevate the host, and cause the people to 
prostrate themselves in worshiping it." In thus 
adoring the consecrated bread with the worship 
that is due to God only, these people make them- 
selves idolators as much as the heathen. It is 
rank idolatry to worship that for God which is 
not God. Then all who worship the wafer are 
idolators. That which they worship we have 
clearly proved is not God, but a mere wafer — a 
piece of bread. 

The following from Delineation of Roman 
Catholicism, by Chas. Elliott, sets forth the 
idolatry in the worship of the host : 

All the marks that the Scriptures give us of an 
idol, and all the reproaches they cast upon it, do as 
well suit the popish god in the sacrament, and as 
heavily light upon it, as anything that was worshiped 



132 Raman CatJiolicism 

by the heathen. It is the mark and reproach of a 
heathen idol that it was made by men. And is not the 
god in the mass as much the work of men's hands as 
any of the pagan idols were? Let none be offended 
when we say the Eomanists make their god, or make 
the body and blood of Christ, for it is their own word, 
and solemnly used by them. And one of the greatest 
reasons for which they deny the validity of Protestant 
ministers is, because in their ordination they do not 
pretend to confer a power of making the body of 
Christ. 

Moreover, the Scripture not only describes an idol, 
but also exposes it to laughter and contempt, by reck- 
oning up the many outrages and ill usages it is ob- 
noxious to, and from which it can not rescue itself. 
Now there is no abuse of this kind which they reckon 
up, but the god which the Eoman Catholics adore in 
the mass is as subject to as any pagan idol ever was. 
If Laban be laughed at for serving gods which were 
stolen away (Gen. 31:30), are they not as much to be 
laughed at whose god has been so often in danger of 
being stolen by thieves, that they have been forced 
to make a law for his safe custody? If men are re- 
proached for worshiping what at last may be cast to 
the moles and bats (Isa. 2:20), are not the Romanists 
equally censurable for worshiping that which may be- 
come the prey of rats and mice, etc.? If it was a 
sufficient proof that the Babylonian gods were idols 
because they were carried away captive, will it not 
be as good an argument to prove the host of the mass 
to be an idol? For they carry it about from place 
to place to be worshiped, and there is one day in the 
year set apart for that purpose, namely. Corpus Christi 
Day, And if we may believe history, this host has been 
likewise taken from the Christians and carried away 
captive by the Mohammedans. 

In the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah we have the 



Idolatrous Worship 133 

following description of an idol: "The smith with 
the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth 
it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of 
his arms. . . . The carpenter stretcheth out his 
rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with 
planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and 
maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the 
beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house. 
. . . He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part 
thereof he eateth flesh: . . . and the residue thereof 
he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth 
down unto it, and worshipeth it, and prayeth unto it, 
and saith. Deliver me, for thou art my god."* The 
parallel between this and making the host > and its 
worship is very striking. 

The farmer soweth wheat, it grows, it ripens, is 
reaped, and is threshed; it is ground at the mill, it is 
sifted with a sieve; with a part thereof the fowls and 
cattle are fed; another part is taken and baked by 
the baker, yet it is no god; it is brought forward and 
laid on the altar, and yet it is no god; the priest han- 
dles and crosses it, and yet it is no god; he pronounces 
over it a few words, when instantly it is the supreme 
God. He falls down before it and prays to it, saying, 
* ' Thou art my God. ' ' He lifts it up to the people, and 
cries, "Eece Agnus Dei, qui tollit mundi peccata" — 
''Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin 
of the world. ' ' The whole congregation fall down and 
worship it, crying, *'Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea 
maxima culpa ' ' — ' ' My fault, my fault, my very great 
fault." How exact the parallel between popish and 
heathen idolatry! 

The idolatry of the Romish church is more 



♦This text is from the Authorized Version instead of 
the Douay, because Mr. Elliott has so quoted it. There 
is no material difference between the two versions in 
their rendition of this text. 



134 Roman Catliolicism 

flagrant than that of the heathen. The latter 
do not hold that the images before whom they 
fall and worship are the real gods, but only 
representations of the real deities they worship ; 
whereas the former believe that the wafer 
(bread) "is the very God himself," "contains 
the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the very 
Christ." And they worship it and adore it, 
believing it to be the Deity himself. They make 
a Savior out of bread, worship it, then eat it. 
Cicero, who was a pagan himself, expressly says 
"that among all the religions of his time, there 
was no man so foolish as to pretend to eat his 
god." — De Nat. Deorum, lib. ill. 

In every mass, as soon as the priest has con- 
secrated the bread and the wine, with bended 
knees he adores the sacrament. He worships 
that very thing which is before him upon the 
paten and in the chalice. With his head and 
soul bowing toward it, he prays to it as to 
Christ : "Lamb of God, who takest away the sin 
of the world, have mercy on us." — Roman Mis- 
sal, p. 219. These words he repeats three times. 
Thus he gives the supreme worship of both body 
and mind to it, as to God or Christ himself. 
When the wine is consecrated, the priest, in like 
manner, "falling on his knees, adores it, rises, 
shows it to the people, puts the cup in its place, 



Idolatrous Worship 135 

covers it over, and again adores it." Thus they 
worship and offer prayer to what Paul terms 
"bread," and what Jesus himself said is "the 
fruit of the vine." 

The Roman "Litany of the Blessed Sacra- 
ment," which is found in most of their books 
of devotion, shows that they actually worship 
and offer prayer to the consecrated bread. 

O living bread, which came down from heaven, have 
mercy on us. 

O wheat of the elect, have mercy on us. 

O wine, which makest virgins to spring forth, have 
mercy on us. 

O bread which is fat, and yieldeth dainties to kings, 
have mercy on us. 

Continual feast, have mercy on us. 

Clean oblation, have mercy on us. 

Food of angels, have mercy on us. 

Hidden manna, have mercy on us. 

Supersubstantial bread, have mercy on us. 

Chalice of benediction, have mercy on us. 

Bread, by the omnipotence of the word, changed into 
flesh, have mercy on us. Etc. 

I again quote from the Council of Trent to 
emphasize this point. 

IF ANY ONE SHALL SAY THAT THE SACEA- 
MENT IS NOT TO BE WORSHIPED BY A PECUL- 
IAR FEAST, NOR TO BE SOLEMNLY CARRIED 
ABOUT IN PROCESSIONS, ACCORDING TO THE 
LAUDABLE AND UNIVERSAL MANNER AND 
CUSTOM OF THE HOLY CHURCH; NOR TO BE 
PUBLICLY PROPOSED TO THE PEOPLE, THAT 
IT MAY BE ADORED BY THEM; . . . LET 
HIM BE ACCURSED. 



136 Roman CatJiottcism 

Thus the Roman Catholics address prayers and 
hymns to the sacrament as if it were the living God. 

This emblem, composed of bread and wine, 
they honor, pray to, and trust in. 

O my Catholic friends, who have been ignor- 
antly led into such idolatrous worship, for the 
sake of your soul's eternal welfare, flee idolatry 
by forever renouncing the apostate Church of 
Rome, and abide only in Christ, worshiping only 
the true and living God. 

Space will not permit a consideration of 
image-worship practised in the Romish church. 
This fact, and also the worship of saints, is well 
known to all. The creed of Pope Pius IV says : 

Likewise, that the saints reigning together with 
Christ, are to be honored and invocated, that they 
offer prayers to God for us; and that their relics are 
to be venerated. 

The Council of Trent, in its twenty-fifth ses- 
sion, decreed: 

The saints, who reign together with Christ, offer their 
prayers to God for men: that it is a good and a useful 
thing suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their 
prayers, help, and assistance. 

To honor the saints who sleep in the Lord, to in- 
voke their intercession, and to venerate their sacred 
relics and ashes, . . . tends considerably to increase 
the glory of God.— Id., p. 329. 

It is an undeniable fact that these worshipers 
bow to the image of Mary, adore her, and offer 
prayers to her. I have before me a number of 



Peitance— Absolution — Auricular Confession 137 

the forms of prayer used by the Catholics, in 
which they beseech this "holy mother of God" 
to deliver them, and to grant them help such as 
God alone can give. 



PENANCE— ABSOLUTION— AURICULAR CON- 
FESSION 

Space will not permit a thorough discussion 
of the doctrines and practises of the Church of 
Rome relative to penance, absolution, and auric- 
ular confession; but I will endeavor briefly to 
set them and their absurdities before the reader. 

The Roman church calls repentance "pen- 
ance." This they say is a sacrament. I quote 
from their standard of doctrine, the Council of 
Trent, fourteenth session: 

If any one says that the Catholic Church penance is 
not truly a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus 
Christ, to reconcile the faithful to God, as often as 
they sin after baptism; let him be accursed. — Can. 1. 

If these [baptized persons] afterwards defile them- 
selves by any transgression, it is not his will that they 
should be cleansed by a repetition of baptism, which is 
on no account lawful in the Catholic Church, but they 
should be placed as offenders before the tribunal of 
penance, that they may be absolved by the sentence 
of the priests, not once only, but as often as they 
flee thereto, confessing their sins. — Can. 2. 

Though the priest's absolution is the dispensation 
of a benefit which belongs to another, yet it is not 
to be considered as merely a ministry, whether to pub- 



138 Roman Cafholicism 

lish the gospel or to declare the remission of sins, but 
as the nature of a judicial act, in which sentence is 
pronounced by him as judge; and therefore the penitent 
ought not to flatter himself on account of his faith, 
for faith without penance can not procure remission 
of sins. — Can. 5. 

Whosoever shall afSrm that the priest's sacramental 
absolution is not a judicial act, ... let him be 
accursed. — Can. 9. 

The Council further teaches, that even those priests 
who are living in mortal ain exercise the function ct 
forgiving sins, as the ministers of Christ, by the power 
of the Holy Spirit conferred on thera in ordinatioix- 
and that those who contend that wicked priests have 
not this power, hold very erroneous sentiments. — -Cari. 6 

Whosoever shall affirm that priests living in mortal 
sin have not the power of binding and loosing, or that 
priests are not the only ministers of absolution, etc.; 
let him be accursed. — Can. 10. 

A wicked priest can validly absolve. — ^Peter Dens. 

Our sins are forgiven by the absolution of the priest. 
The voice of the priest, who is legitimately consti- 
tuted a minister for the remission of sins, is to be 
heard as that of Christ himself.^-Catechism of the 
Council of Trent, p. 239. 

The absolution of the priest, which is expressed in 
words, seals the remission of sins, which it accomplishes 
in the soul. — Id., p. 240. 

Unlike the authority given to the priests of the old 
law, to declare the leper cleansed from his leprosy, 
the power which the priests of the new law are in- 
vested is not simply to doclare that sins are forcriven, 
but, as the ministers of God, feally to absoh e from 
sin.— Id., p. 242. 

There is no sin, however grievous, no crime, however 
enormous, or however frequently repeated, which pen- 
ance does not remit. — Id., p. 243. 



Penance — Ah solution^ Auricular Confession 139 

Without the intervention of penance we can not 
obtain, or even hope for pardon. — Id., p. 244. 

The penitent must also submit himself to the judg- 
ment of the priest, who is the vicegerent of God. — 
Id., p. 245. 

The form of absolution used by the priest is : 

I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. — 
Peter Dens. 

I judicially bestow on thee the grace of the remis- 
sion of all thy sins, or grace of itself remissive of all' 
thy sins. — Id. 

Reader, observe that the priests of Rome 
claim the power to ^-judge^^ the souls of men, 
and by "a judicial act" absolve from all sin. 
The voice of the priest in this "is to be heard as 
that of Christ himself." Every priest "is the 
vicegerent of God," and "there is no sin, how- 
ever grievous, no crime, however enormous," but 
what he has power to forgive, or absolve from. 
Even priests guilty of "mortal sin" have this 
power. These claims the Romish church un- 
blushingly makes. What further proof is needed 
that she is the great Antichrist that Christ and 
the apostles foretold would come.^^ The Romish 
church thus fulfils to the very letter the pre- 
diction of Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3, 4 : "Let no 
man deceive you by any means, for unless there 
come a revolt first, and the man of sin be re- 
vealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth, and 



140 Roman Catholicism 

is lifted up above all that is called God, or that 
is worshiped, so that he sitteth in the temple 
of God, showing himself as if he were God." 
Every priest of Rome, in his claim that there is 
"no sin, no crime, however enormous," but what 
he has power to absolve, exalts himself above 
all that is called God; for God himself declares 
there is one sin for which there is no forgiveness. 
In fact, every priest, in claiming power to ju- 
diciously absolve from guilt and judge the souls 
of men, "sitteth in the temple of God, showing 
himself as if he were God." 

The means of salvation as clearly set forth 
in the New Testament, is " penance toward god, 
and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20: 
21). "Repentance toward God, and faith to- 
ward our Lord Jesus Christ," A. V. None can 
forgive sins but God alone (Mark 2:7). "Bless 
the Lord, O my soul, and never forget all he 
hath done for thee. Who forgiveth all thine 
iniquities" (Psa. 102:2, 3—103:2, 3, A. V.). 
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, 
the remission of sins" (Eph. 1:7). "I am, I 
am he that blot out thy iniquities for my own 
sake, and I will not remember thy sins" (Isa. 
43: 25). "To the Lord our God belong mercy 
and forgiveness" (Dan. 9:8, 9). "Even as 
God hath forgiven you in Christ" (Eph. 4 : 32). 



Penance — Ah solution — Auricular Confession 141 

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, 
to forgive us our sins" (1 John 1:9). These, 
with a multitude of other texts, clearly teach 
that to God alone belongs the power to absolve 
from guilt and sin. 

John 20 : 23 was never understood by the 
primitive ministry and church as the Romanists 
now interpret it. Christ made clear his mean- 
ing in the final commission which he gave to his 
ministry : "Preach the gospel to every creature. 
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved : 
but he that believeth not shall be condemned." 
"That penance [repentance, A. V.] and remis- 
sion of sins should be preached in his name unto 
all nations" (Luke 24: 27). Thus on the day 
of Pentecost Peter preached, "Do penance [re- 
pent, A. v.], and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38). 
"Be penitent [repent, A. V.], therefore, and 
be converted, that your sins may be blot- 
ted out" (Acts 3:19). "By his name all 
receive remission of sins, who believe in him" 
(Acts 10:43). Paul was sent to the Gentiles 
"to open their eyes, that they may be converted 
from darkness to light, and from the power of 
Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness 
of sins, and a lot among the saints, by the faith 



142 Roman Gatliolicism 

that is in me" (Acts 26: 18). "To open their 
eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, 
and from the power of Satan unto God, that 
they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheri- 
tance among them which are sanctified by faith 
which is in me," A. V. These t^xts clearly set 
forth the apostolic manner of remitting and re- 
taining sins. It was through the ministry of 
the Word. Thus "it pleased God, by the fool- 
ishness of our preaching, to save them that be- 
lieve" ( 1 Cor. 1 : 21) . The gospel message was : 
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt 
be saved." None of the primitive ministers 
claimed judicial power to remit or to retain sins, 
but fulfilled this statement of Jesus only de- 
claratively or ministerially. 

When we study the nature of sin, the ab- 
surdity of the Romish claim appears all the 
clearer. Sin is the transgression of God's law, 
an offense against Jehovah himself. Being the 
transgression of an infinite and holy law, com- 
mitted against an infinite and holy God, an in- 
finite debt to divine justice is contracted. It is 
the case of an offending man against an offended 
God. How can a finite creature, who knows not 
the thoughts and hearts of his fellow men, and 
who himself is often "guilty of mortal sin," as- 
sume the responsible position of absolving the 



Penance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 143 

guilty from their sins, which God alone can do? 
There were no confessionals in the primitive 
church. There is no record in the New Testa- 
ment of any of the ministers claiming to exercise 
the judicial power of the Romish priesthood. 
They pointed men to Christ. "Believe in the 
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." 
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust 
man his thoughts, and let him return to the 
Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to 
our God: for he is bountiful to forgive" (Isa. 
55:7). 

As to the confessional, the Catholics teach 
that we should not confess our sins direct to 
God, but privately to a priest, and this they are 
pleased to call "auricular confession." The 
Council of Lateran decrees: 

That every man and woman, after they come to 
years of discretion, should privately confess their sins 
to their own priest, at least once a year, and endeavor 
faithfully to perform the penance enjoined on them; 
and after this they should come to the sacrament at 
least at Easter, unless the priest, for some reasonable 
cause, judges it fit for them to abstain for that time. 
And whoever does not perform this is to be excom- 
municated out of the church, and if he die, he is not 
to be allowed Christian burial. 

The Council of Trent decrees, Sess. xiv: 
Canon 6. Whoever shall deny that sacramental con- 
fession was instituted by divine command, or that it 
is necessary to salvation; or shall aflBirm that the prac- 



144 Roman CatJiolicism 

tise of secretly confessing to the priest alone, as it has 
been ever observed hy the Catholic Church, and is still 
observed, is foreign to the institution and conmianded 
of Christ, and is a human invention: let him be ac- 
cursed. 

Canon 7. Whoever shall affirm that, in order to 
obtain forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of pen- 
ance, it is not necessary by divine .command to con- 
fess all and every mortal sin which occurs to the mem- 
ory after due and diligent premeditation — including 
secret offenses, and those which have been committed 
against the two last precepts of the decalogue, and 
those circumstances which change the species of sin; 
but that such confession is only useful for the in- 
struction and consolation of the penitent, arid was 
formerly observed merely as a canonical satisfaction 
imposed upon him; or shall af&rm that those who labor 
to confess all their sins wish to leave nothing to be 
pardoned by the divine mercy; or finally, that it is 
not lawful to confess venial sins; let him be accursed. 

Canon 8. Whoever shall affirm that the confession 
of every sin, according to the custom of the church, is 
impossible, and merely a human tradition, which the 
pious should reject; or that all Christians, of both 
sexes, are not bound to observe the same once a year, 
according to the constitution of the great Council* of 
Lateran; and therefore that the faithful in Christ are 
to be persuaded not to confess in Lent; let him be 
accursed. 

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent 

we take the following extracts: 

Mortal sins, as we have already said, although 
buried in the darkest secrecy, and also sins of desire 
only, such as are forbidden by the ninth and tenth 
commandments, are all and each of them to be made 
matter of confession. — P. 258. 



Paiance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 145 

With the bare emimeration of our mortal sins we 
should not be satisfied; that enumeration we should 
accompany with the relation of such circumstances as 
considerably aggravate or extenuate their malice. — 
P. 259. 

After censuring those who justify or exten- 
uate their sins, the Catechism declares: 

Still more pernicious is the conduct of those who, 
yielding to a foolish bashfulness, can not induce 
themselves to confess their sins. Such persons are to 
be encouraged by exhortation, and to be reminded that 
there is no reason whatever why they should yield to 
such false delicacy; that to no one can it appear sur- 
prizing if persons fall into sin, the common malady of 
the human race, and the natural appendage of human 
misery .~P. 264. 

The following is the general form of confes- 
sion : 

I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever a 
virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed 
John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, 
to all the saints, and to thee, father, that I have sinned 
exceedingly, in thought, word, and deed, through my 
fault, through my most grevious fault: therefore I be- 
seech the blessed Mary, ever a virgin, the blessed 
Michael the Archangel, the blessed John the Baptist, 
the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and 
thee, father, to pray to the Lord our God for me. 

To enlightened minds, the above quotations 
are sufficient, without any comment, to show the 
blasphemous and idolatrous observance of Ro- 
man confession. They usually resort to Jas. 
5 : 16, as an excuse for the practise. "Confess 
therefore your sins one to another." "Confess 



146 Roman Catholicism 

your faults one to another," A. V. But this 
passage says nothing about a confessional in 
which penitents are to enter, whispering their 
sins, even secret sins, into the ears of wicked 
priests who themselves are guilty of mortal 
sin. There is as much foundation in the text 
for the priest to confess his sins to the people 
as the people to the priest. Again, there is not 
a hint in the text about any absolution being 
granted by a priest. 

Whoever read in the New Testament where 
Peter, Paul, or any of the other apostles set up 
a confessional of any kind, as installed in the 
Roman church? God alone is the one to whom 
confession is to be made. "I have acknowledged 
my sin to thee, and my injustice I have not con- 
cealed. I said I will confess against myself my 
injustice to the Lord: and thou hast forgiven 
the wickedness of my sin" (Psa. 31: 5 — 32: 5, 
A. v.). "Have mercy upon me, O God, ac- 
cording to thy great mercy. And according to 
the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my 
iniquity. Wash me yet more from my iniquity, 
and cleanse me from my sin. . . . To thee 
only have I sinned" (Psa. 50:1-6—51:1-6, 
A. v.). The cry of the publican was, "O God, 
be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18: 13). 

I will conclude this chapter with the following 



Penance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 147 

quotation from Elliott on Romanist, pp. 318, 
319: 

The instructions on this point given to Eoman 
Catholic priests in some of their seminaries train 
them to falsehood; yea, more, their theology, as a sys- 
tem, insists upon perjury, and demands it of their con- 
fessors. This is a heavy charge, and the proof ought to 
be called for and produced. Here is the proof: Peter 
Dens, in his Theology, which is the class-book in the 
Maynooth College, in Ireland, and is generally used 
in most Eoman Catholic theological schools, and is 
approved of by the dignitaries of the Church of Kome, 
teaches as follows what the duty of confessors is in 
reference to what is communicated to them in con- 
fession: 

''Can a case be given in which it is lawful to break 
the secrecy of confession? Ans. None can be given; 
although the life or salvation of a man, or the destruc- 
tion of the commonwealth, would depend thereon. For 
the pope himself can not dispense with it; because the 
secrecy of the seal of confession is more binding than 
the obligation of an oath, a vow, a natural secret, etc.; 
and it depends on the positive will of God. 

"What then ought a confessor to answer when 
interrogated respecting any truth which he knows only 
by sacramental confession? Ans. He ought to answer 
that he does not know it; and, if necessary, to con- 
firm that by an oath. 

''Obj. It is not lawful to lie in any case; but 
the confessor lies, because he knows the truth; there- 
fore, etc. Ans. The minor proposition is denied: 
because such a confessor is interrogated as a man, 
and answers as man; but he does not know this truth 
as man, though he knows it as Gtod; as St. 
Thoman Aquinas says, q. ii, art. 1, ad. 3: and this 
sense properly exists naturally in the very answer; for 



148 Roman Catholicism 

when he is interrogated or answers in other cases than 
confession, he is considered as a man. 

' ' But what if the confessor is directly asked whether 
he knows that by sacramental confession? Ans. In 
this case he ought to answer nothing: so says Steyart 
with Sylvius. But such an interrogation is to be re- 
jected as impious: or the confessor can say absolutely, 
not relatively, to the inquiry, (Ego nihil scio,) I know 
nothing; because the word (Ego) I^ refers to human 
knowledge. In like manner, if a confessor should be 
cited before a court for trial, that he might give a 
reason for the denial, he ought to contend that in this 
matter HE KNOWS NO SUPEEIOE BUT GOD." 

From the foregoing, it follows that the 
Church of Rome teaches and practises that ( 1 ) 
what a priest knows in confession, he knows it 
not as man, but as God; (2) hence, if a priest 
hears a thing in confession, and if, being asked 
and sworn, he shall say he never heard such a 
thing, he neither lies nor is perjured; (3) it is 
not lawful to reveal anything that is told only 
in confession, though it be to avoid the greatest 
evil, such as the death of a man, his damnation, 
the destruction of the commonwealth, etc. Hence 
we infer, that should the life of the president of 
the United States be in danger, or should states 
be in danger of destruction, a priest must not 
reveal a secret obtained through confession, 
should the discovery save the life of the chief 
magistrate, or preserve the whole union from 
ruin. 



Penance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 149 

Indeed, it would be difficult to find, in so many 
words, such a total disregard to truth, and such 
blasphemous assumptions, as are contained in 
this quotation from Dens. Here blasphemy is 
unblushingly taught; for the priest here affects 
to act as God, thereby making himself equal 
with God, and manifesting the marked char- 
acter of antichrist, who "sitteth in the temple 
of God, showing himself as if he were God." 
Here, too, a known and deliberate lie, according 
to this veracious Roman Catholic writer, may be 
told, and told by a preacher of religion, con- 
nected, too, with administering a sacrament, as 
they call it. To this is to be added perjury, 
in order to make the deliberate lie pass for 
truth. Besides, the life of a man, or even his 
salvation, or the destruction, "interitus reipub- 
licae," the overthrow of our republican govern- 
ment (to use the very words of Dens), are con- 
sidered small matters, if necessary to keep up 
the authority of the Roman Catholic priesthood ! 
It is useless to inquire what kind of citizens 
Roman Catholic priests will make, when they are 
taught such horrible principles. 



150 Roman CatJiolicism 

THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY 

The following presents the teaching of the 
Church of Rome concerning purgatory: 

I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that 
the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages 
of the faithful.— Creed of Pope Pius IV. 

It is a place in which the souls of the pious dead, 
obnoxious to temporal punishment, make satisfaction. 
— Dens' Theology, No. 25. 

Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy 
Spirit from the sacred writings and the ancient tradi- 
tions of the fathers, hath taught in holy councils, and 
lastly in this (Ecumenical council, that there is a purga- 
tory; and that the souls detained there are assisted 
by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the 
acceptable sacrifice of the mass; this holy council com- 
mands all bishops diligently to endeavor that the whole- 
some doctrine concerning purgatory, ... be be- 
lieved, held, taught, and everywhere preached by 
Christ's faithful. — Council of Trent, 25th session. 

If any one shall say that after the reception of the 
grace of justification the guilt is so remitted to the 
penitent sinner, and the penalty of eternal punishment 
destroyed, that no penalty of temporal punishment 
remains to be paid, either in this world, or in the fu- 
ture in purgatory, before the access to the kingdom 
of heaven can lie open; let him be anathema. — Council 
of Trent, 6th session, Can. 30. 

In the fire of purgatory the souls of just men are 
cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be 
admitted into their eternal country. — Catechism of 
the Council of Trent, p. 63. 

Q. Whither go such as die in mortal sin? A. To 
hell, to all eternity. Q. Whither go such as die in 
venial sin, or not having fully satisfied for the pun- 
ishment due to their mortal sins? A. To purgatory, till 



Penance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 151 

they have made full satisfaction for them, then to 
heaven. — Douay Catechism. 

As to the location of this fictitious place, I 
quote from the orthodox Roman Catholic Dens : 

Q. Where is purgatory? A. The ordinary place of 
purgatory, which properly and commonly is understood 
by that name, is under the earth, and adjoining to 
hell.— Dens, Purgatory, No. 27, Vol. VII, p. 400. 

From the above-cited quotations it will be 
seen that the Church of Rome positively teaches 
that "under the earth, and adjoining to hell," 
is a place which they are pleased to call purga- 
tory. Into this place the dead in Christ, "just 
men," whose "mortal sins were already par- 
doned," and whose "venial sins" were atoned for 
in the sacrifice of mass, must go at death and 
suffer "a temporary punishment" ; and this is a 
place of "fire," in which "fire of purgatory, the 
souls of just men are cleansed," "in order to be 
admitted into the eternal country." The misery 
and suffering of these righteous souls in pur- 
gatory can be mitigated "by the suffrages of 
the faithful." This they define as the procuring 
of masses to be said for the dead, procuring in- 
dulgences, votes of the faithful, variously given 
by prayers, offerings, purchasing masses, etc. 
These are all paid for by the living friends of 
the deceased; which is neither more nor less 
than paying money to the priests. Thus this 



152 Roman Catholicism 

fabulous Romish story, which originated about 
the end of the sixth century under Pope Greg- 
ory the Great, is an amazing source of profit 
financially to the Roman clergy. In the fear 
of God we affirm that this giving of money to 
the priests for the souls of the righteous who 
are supposed to be tormented in the fires of 
purgatory is a clear fulfilment of Peter's pre- 
diction that false prophets would bring in "sects 
of perdition" and "through covetousness shall 
they with feigned words make merchandise of 
youC^ "and their perdition slumbereth not" 
(2 Pet. 2: 1-3). Rome is none other than the 
great Babylon of Revelation, which is said to 
make "merchandise" of the "souls of men" (Rev- 
elation 18). 

This is another evidence that papal Rome is 
but a continuation of pagan Rome clothed in 
a Christian garb. Before Gregory the Great, 
the doctrine of purgatory was taught by no one 
but by heathen poets and philosophers. Car- 
dinal Bellarmine admits this. — Bellarmine: De 
Purg, lib. 1, c. 11. Thus it will be seen that this 
unreasonable doctrine originated with the 
heathen and was copied by the Roman bishops. 
It truly can be said of it that it is heathenish. 

It is squarely contrary to the plain teaching 
of Scripture. Saith the Lord, "I will forgive 



The Doctrine of Purgatory 153 

their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no 
more" (Jer. 31:34). "I am, I am he that 
blot out thy iniquities for my own sake, and I 
will not remember thy sins" (Isa. 43:25). 
"Their sins I will remember no more" (Heb. 
8: 12). "By his own bloody entered once into 
the holies, having obtained eternal redemption" 
(Jleb. 9:12). "Now once at the end of 
ages hath he appeared, for the destruction of 
sin, by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:26). 
"For by one oblation he hath perfected forever 
them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10: 14.). "The 
blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from 
all sin" (1 John 1:7). He hath "washed us 
from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5). 
"He became, to all that obey him, the cause of 
eternal salvation" (Heb. 5:9). But why mul- 
tiply texts .^ There is no other remedy for sin 
and its punishment but the blood of Jesus. 
There is no need of a purgatory. The blood 
now "cleanseth from all sin." It purifies the 
heart. "Blessed are the clean of heart : for they 
shall see God." When we are purged from all 
our sins in the blood of Jesus and cleansed from 
all sin's defiling, we are said to be "perfected 
FOREVER," sanctified, the possessors of "eter- 
nal SALVATION." Our past sins will be re- 
membered no more. This leaves no place for 



154 Roman Catholicism 

purgatory. The righteous are said to possess 
"everlasting life" now, and how can this har- 
monize with a period of suffering in the fires of 
purgatory? Also, those who are saved are said 
to be possessed with "everlasting joy" now, 
and they are commanded to "rejoice evermore." 
How can this harmonize with a period of tor- 
ment awaiting us in purgatory.'' 

"Being justified therefore by faith, let us 
have peace with God" ( Rom. 5 : 1 ) . "There- 
fore being justified by faith, we have peace with 
God," A. V. This is a peace which Jesus said 
would abide. Such a state of peace with God 
can not agree with purgatory. "There is now 
therefore no condemnation to them that are 
in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). And as far as 
the future is concerned, such "cometh not into 
judgment" (John 5: 24). 

If there is a purgatory of fire and torment 
awaiting "just men" after death, surely Simeon 
had a surprize awaiting him on the other side; 
for he said, "Now thou dost dismiss thy serv- 
ant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace" 
(Luke 2:29). Paul said: "I am straitened 
between two : having a desire to be dissolved and 
to be with Christ, a thing by far the better" 
(Phil. 1:23); and again, "To die is gain." 
If he woke up in the next world tormented "in 



The Doctrine of Purgatory 155 

the fire of purgatory," to be "cleansed by a 
temporary punishment, in order to be admitted 
into the eternal country," surely his surprize 
must have been unbounded. There is no record 
of any one's offering mass for the dead in those 
days, nor of the primitive saints' paying money 
to the priest for Paul's deliverance, therefore, 
according to Romish teaching, the Apostle had 
to remain in the fire until he himself "had paid 
the uttermost farthing." The unreasonableness 
of such a doctrine appears on the very face of 
it. 

Everywhere the Scriptures teach that in time 
and life man is on probation, . with the power 
to chose eternal life or eternal death. Provision 
has been made through the atonement of Christ 
to fully save every man from all sin and to 
preserve blameless every believer "unto His 
heavenly kingdom." The entire human family 
is now divided into two classes — the righteous, 
and the wicked. Only two destinies await these 
classes after death, and the same will be true 
beyond the great judgment-day. When men 
pass through the portals of death, they enter 
into eternity. In that future state we read of 
but two places or states. The just at death 
are carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom 
— the paradise of God (see Luke 16 ; 23 : 43) — 



156 Roman CatJiolicism 

where, immediately after death, they are "com- 
forted" (Luke 16: 25). Jesus knew nothing of 
purgatory when he said to the dying thief, "To- 
day thou shalt be with me in paradise." "Blessed 
are the dead, who die in the Lord. From hence- 
forth, now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest 
from their labors" (Rev. 14: 13). "There the 
wicked cease from tumult, and there the wearied 
in strength are at rest" (Job 3: 17). How dif- 
ferent the Scriptures sound beside the Romish 
teaching of a purgatory of fire and torment for 
just men after death! Paul positively teaches 
that when we are absent from the body, we 
are present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). 

Thousands of departing souls have testified 
that they heard the angels singing and were go- 
ing to a place of rest and happiness. Is it pos- 
sible that all these were mistaken, and that the 
Creator put it into the hearts of his children, in 
the most solemn hour of their existence, to tes- 
tify to a falsehood? Would men who would dis- 
dain a lie, be made to speak an unconscious one 
in the hour of death? Was Stephen mistaken 
when he looked up "stedfastly to heaven, saw the 
glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right 
hand of God"? and a little later when he ad- 
dressed his Savior thus: "Lord Jesus, receive 
my spirit"? Was the apostle Paul mistaken 



The Gospel to tJie Dead 157 

when he said, "We know" that when this earthly 
house, this mortal body, dissolves in death, we 
shall "be with Christ" — ^be absent from the 
body, and "present with the lord"? 



THE GOSPEL TO THE DEAD 

"For, for this cause was the gospel preached 
also to the dead: that they might be judged in- 
deed according to men, in the flesh ; but may live 
according to God, in the Spirit" (1 Pet. 4:6). 
"Because Christ also died once for our sins, the 
just for the unjust: that he might oifer us to 
God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but 
enlivened in the spirit, in which also coming he 
preached to those spirits that were in prison: 
which had been some time incredulous, when 
they waited for the patience of God in the 
days of Noe, when the ark was a building: 
wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved 
by water" (1 Pet. 3: 18-20). 

These two texts are the main ones relied upon 
for the erroneous doctrines of purgatory, say- 
ing masses for the dead, and praying for the 
dead. But I am sure that after a careful read- 
ing, it must take a great stretch of the imagina- 
tion to read into these passages such doctrines 



158 Bo7nan Catholicism 

as mass and purgatory. Nothing of the kind is 
even hinted. 

As to the first of these texts, I will submit 
the following renderings : "For this indeed was 
the eifect of the preaching of the gospel to the 
dead, that some will be punished, as carnal men; 
but others lead a spiritual life unto God." — 
Wakefield. "For this cause was the gospel 
preached to them that were dead ; that they who 
live according to men in the flesh, may be con- 
demned; but that they who live according to 
God in the Spirit, may live." — Knatchhull. 

By "the dead" Peter evidently refers to those 
who had lived and died under the old dispensa- 
tion, in counter-distinction to those who are now 
living under the gospel. "The most intelligible 
meaning (of 1 Pet. 3:18, 19; 4:6) suggested 
by the context is, that Christ by his spirit 
preached to those who, in the time of Noe, while 
the ark was preparing were disobedient, and 
whose spirits are now in prison abiding the gen- 
eral judgment." In the text under considera- 
tion, however, special reference is made to the 
antediluvian world. When did these people 
have the gospel preached to them? 

In Heb. 4:2 it is plainly taught that the 
gospel was preached to those under the Old 
Testament as well as to us under the New. To 



. TJie Gospel to the Bead 159 

them, of course, it was preached in promise and 
prophecy, and demonstrated in type and shad- 
ow; but it was preached to them while they 
were living here upon the earth. The effect of 
the gospel was, in essence, the same to those 
under the Old Testament as to us under the 
New. To many of them the word preached "did 
not profit them, not being mixed with faith of 
those things they heard." Such "will be pun- 
ished as carnal men," for they "who lived ac- 
cording to men in the flesh" will be "judged," 
or "condemned." But those who, like Abraham, 
believed God, and in type and shadow "drank of 
that spiritual rock that followed them" (Christ), 
shall "live according to God, in the spirit." In 
other words, those who led "a spiritual life 
unto God" here below, will enjoy the bliss of 
eternal life beyond. The result of this preach- 
ing was that "eight souls were saved," while 
the remainder "perished." 

Christ, "by the Spirit," preached to those 
people through human instrumentality. Hence 
Noah is called by this same apostle "the preacher 
of justice" (2 Pet. 2:5). From Jude 14, 16 
it is evident that Enoch also preached and 
warned the ungodly at that time. Methuselah 
was three hundred and sixty-nine years old 
when Noah was born (see Gen. 5 : 25, 28). Noah 



160 Romcm Catholicism 

was "six hundred years old, when the waters of 
the flood overflowed the earth" (Gen. 7:6). 
Methuselah lived to be nine hundred and sixty- 
nine years old (Gen. 5:27), and then died a 
natural death; but according to these dates, he 
lived until the year of the flood. Being the son 
of Enoch, who walked with God, he is classed 
with the "sons of God." We would naturally 
infer that Methuselah also warned the dis- 
obedient people of his time. 

Peter informs us in this same epistle that the 
Spirit that was in those ancient men of God was 
the Spirit of Christ (1 Pet. 1: 11). Thus by 
the Spirit Christ strove with that ancient "world 
of the ungodly," warned them by Noah and 
others, and "waited" long for their repentance. 
It may be objected that Christ preached to 
"spirits." We read that the Lord is the "God 
of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. 16:22), and 
that he is "the Father of spirits" (Heb. 12: 9), 
and in these texts reference is made to men who 
are yet in the flesh. The soul, or spirit, of man 
is the volitional part of his being. It is that 
part which sins and must be saved through the 
blood of Christ. This objection will be obviated, 
however, if we take into consideration the fact 
brought out by the context, that Christ 



Church of Rome in DanieVs Prophecy 161 

preached by his Spirit to those who are now 
spirits in prison. 

There is no indication in the Scripture under 
consideration that the antediluvians nor any 
one else had another chance of salvation after 
death. The only preaching of Christ to them 
with the object of their salvation was that 
which was offered them "in the days of Noe, 
when the ark was a building." 

Even some Roman Catholic writers are forced 
to admit that 1 Pet. 3 : 18-20 is no good founda- 
tion for purgatory or masses for the dead. 

But we may doubt whether this be the meaning of 
•St. Peter in this place. — Calmet. 

He who, in our times, coming in the flesh, preached 
the way of life to the world, even he himself came 
before the flood, and preached to them who then were 
unbelievers, and lived carnally. For even he, by his 
Holy Spirit, was in Noah, and in the rest of the holy 
men which were at that time, and by their good con- 
versation preached to the wicked men of that age, 
that they might be converted to better manners. — Bede. 



THE CHURCH OF ROME DESCRIBED IN 
DANIEL'S PROPHECY 

In Dan. 7 : 2-8 four great universal kingdoms, 
which ruled in succession in ancient times, are 
brought to view under the symbols of four 
beasts. An angel gave Daniel the following 
interpretation of the vision : "These four great 



162 Boman Catholicism 

beasts are four kingdoms, which shall arise out 
of the earth" (v. 17). These were the Baby- 
lonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman 
kingdoms. The last one concerns us most. In 
the vision it was seen as "a fourth beast, ter- 
rible and wonderful, and exceeding strong, it 
had great iron teeth, eating and breaking in 
pieces, and treading down the rest with its feet : 
and it was unlike the other beasts which I had 
seen before it, and had ten horns. I considered 
the horns, and behold another little horn 
sprung out of the midst of them: and three of 
the first horns were plucked up at the presence 
thereof: and behold eyes like the eyes of man, 
were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great 
things" (vv. 7, 8) . "I beheld, and lo, that horn 
made war against the saints, and prevailed over 
them" (v. 21). 

This the angel interpreted: "And the ten 
horns of the same kingdom, shall be ten kings: 
and another shall rise up after them, and he 
shall be mightier than the former, and he shall 
bring down three kings. And he shall speak 
words against the High One, and shall crush 
the saints of the most High: and he shall think 
himself able to change times and laws, and they 
shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and 
times, and the half a time. And judgment shall 



Church of Borne in DanieVs Prophecy 163 

sit, that his power may be taken away, and be 
broken in pieces, and perish even to the end" 
(vv. 24-26). 

This fourth kingdom was Rome. She de- 
voured, broke in pieces, and crushed the na- 
tions with her iron rule. "Horn" denotes power. 
The ten horns are the ten kingdoms which grew 
out of the Roman Empire. Next came up a 
"little horn." This was popery, which grew 
out of heathen Rome. Three of the ten — the 
Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Lombards — were 
plucked up by this one. His "mouth speaking 
great things," "great words against the High 
One," was fulfilled in the great assumptions of 
the pope. These have all been considered in 
previous chapters. "That horn made war 
against the saints, and prevailed over them"; 
and it was to "crush the saints of the Most 
High." This was fulfilled in the long period 
of martyrdom, when millions were slaughtered 
because they would not accept the doctrines of 
the papacy. This horn (power) grew out of 
paganism. Though clothed in a Christian garb, 
it was the same persecuting power. Where 
heathen Rome slaughtered her thousands. Chris- 
tian {?) Rome slaughtered her millions. The 
Romanists try to shift this responsibility to the 
temporal kings, but it must be remembered that 



164 Bomcm Catholicism 

during the dark ages of martyrdom, these kings 
were but the obedient servants of the pope. 
Changing times had a fulfilment under the pa- 
pacy. When the pope takes ordinary time and 
makes holy time of it, he is assuming a right 
which belongs to God alone. In the preceding 
chapters it is abundantly shown that the Romish 
church has made null and void many of the 
fundamental truths of the Bible, and substi- 
tuted in their stead human tradition. This is 
changing laws. The reign of this power is 
limited to "a time and times and the half a 
time." This is the exact time the woman 
(church) was to continue in the desert (Rev. 
12: 14). The reign of popery, then, covers the 
desert state of the church. 

It is further said that "his power may be 
taken away, and be broken in pieces, and perish 
even to the end." This is in perfect accord with 
Paul's testimony in 2 Thessalonians 2, that the 
man of sin was to be killed with the spirit of 
the Lord's mouth, and be destroyed with the 
brightness of his coming. This consuming be- 
gan with the reformation, is continued in the 
evening light of this dispensation, and will 
reach its grand climax at the second advent of 
Christ. The present destruction is effected by 
the executing of the flaming judgments of 



The Papacy in Revelation 165 

truth against this false worship and false sys- 
tem of religion. From the Reformation until 
now, the temporal power of the papacy has been 
on a rapid decline. The very governments that 
once upheld her have turned Protestant. Rome 
never again will exercise universal dominion as 
she once did. This consuming of her power 
and influence is to continue "to the end." Her 
final doom is foretold by the prophet in these 
words : "I saw that the beast was slain, and the 
body thereof was destroyed, and given to the 
fire to be burnt." 



THE PAPACY PORTRAYED IN THE REVELATION 

In Revelation 12 we have the symbol of "a 
great red dragon, having seven heads and ten 
horns: and on his heads seven diadems" (v. 3). 
This dragon represents Rome under the pagan 
religion. Rome was truly a dragon power. Its 
color — red — denotes its bloodthirstiness. Its 
seven heads represent the seven supreme forms 
of government that ruled successively in the 
empire — the regal power, the dictatorship, the 
decemvirate, the consular, the triumvirate, the 
imperial, and the patriciate. The ten horns of 
the dragon represent the ten kingdoms which 
grew out of the Roman empire — the Huns, the 



166 Roman Catholicism 

Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Franks, the Van- 
dals, the Suevi, the Burgundians, the Heruli, the 
Anglo-Saxons, and the Lombards. The casting 
down of the stars doubtless refers to the thou- 
sands of bright luminaries who were martyred 
during the reign of paganism. , Just as fast as 
men accepted the Christian faith the pagans 
were ready to devour them. Bloody were the 
days of the church under pagan Rome, 

In this same chapter the church is seen in her 
primitive glory under the symbol of "a woman 
clothed with the sun, and the moon under her 
feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" 
(v. 1). Later this woman "fled into the wilder- 
ness," where she remained in a state of ob- 
scurity for "a thousand two hundred sixty 
days" ; "for a time and times, and half a time" 
(w. 6, 14). This covers a period of the great 
apostasy. 

After the dragon — pagan Rome — was con- 
quered by Christianity, it is said he was "angry 
against the woman [church] : and went to make 
war with the rest of her seed" (v. 17). This 
he could not do himself, for his power was 
broken. He accomplished his purpose, however, 
through his offspring and successor, "the beast." 
Through this beast, war was made against the 



The Pupacy in Revelation 167 

remnant of the seed of the woman — the few who 
stood true to God during the Dark Ages. 

"And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, 
having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his 
horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of 
blasphemy. And the beast, which I saw, was 
like to a leopard, and his feet were as the feet 
of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. 
And the dragon gave him his own strength, and 
great power" (Rev. 13: 1, 2). It will be seen 
that the beast resembles his parent, the dragon. 
The dragon had seven heads, so had the beast. 
The dragon had ten horns, so had the beast. 
But there was a difference. The dragon had his 
crowns upon his heads, while the beast had his 
crowns upon his horns. This beast is popery. 
Popery is a child of pagan Rome, the dragon. 
During the reign of the empire the seven heads, 
or forms of government, were the ruling powers ; 
hence the crowns were upon his heads: but 
when popery arose, the ten kingdoms were the 
ruling power — the crowns were upon the horns. 

This beast is identical with that of Rev. 
17:2 and the "little horn" of Daniel 7. A 
leopard is a spotted animal, a type of sin. 
Since this beast was "like a leopard," it rep- 
resents a very sinful power; and such is the 
papacy. The resemblance of its feet to the 



168 Roman CatJiolicism 

feet of a bear signifies its crushing power. Its 
"mouth as the mouth of a lion" symbolizes the 
devouring nature of the papacy. But where did 
popery get her power .f^ "And the dragon gave 
him his own strength, and great power." The 
ten kingdoms of Rome gave their strength and 
power to the beast (Rev. 17:13). Instead of 
popery receiving her power from above, she re- 
ceived it from paganism. The seat of pagan 
government — Rome — became the seat of papal 
rule. 

"And he took me away in spirit into the des- 
ert. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet- 
colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, hav- 
ing seven heads and ten horns" (v. 3). The 
solution of this will be given in our exegesis of 
Rev. 17: 10, 11. The Roman empire had seven 
heads, or forms of government. The sixth of 
these was the imperial. This was the form of 
government under the heathen Caesars. The time 
came when the hordes of savages from the North 
swept over the empire and overthrew the im- 
perial government (A. D. 476). It was wounded 
to death. Later the patriciate ruled the empire 
for a short time, after which, under Charle- 
magne, the imperial power revived as the Holy 
Roman Empire, controlled by popery. The 
wound was healed. Imperial Rome was the same 



The Papacy in Revelation 169 

under priestcraft and popery that it was under 
the Cassars. Under the Cassars it was clothed in 
heathen garb; under priestcraft, in Christian 
garb. Thus the beast (popery) constituted the 
eighth head of Rome and yet was one of the 
seven. "All the earth was in admiration after 
the beast." Popery swayed universal dominion. 

"And they adored the dragon, which gave 
power to the beast: and they adored the beast, 
saying: Who is like to the beast? and who shall 
be able to fight with him.?" (Rev. 13: 4). This 
was fulfilled by the continuance of the pagan 
worship in the papal age. The high priest of 
the pagan Romans was called their pontiff. It 
was customary among them to deify their great 
men after their death and tomakeimagesof them 
and worship them. So also was it customary 
among the papists to make saints of their great 
men after their death by canonizing them. Papists 
pray to their saints, make images of them, and 
bow to them as the pagans did to their gods. 
Papists sprinkle their holy water as the pagans 
sprinkled their holy water. Papists advocate 
celibacy as did the pagans. In many other 
ways Roman Catholics have practised heathen 
worship. Thus they have caused the people to 
worship the dragon. 

"And there was given to him a mouth speak- 



170 Roman Catholicism 

ing great things, and blasphemies: and power 
was given to him to do two and forty months. 
And he opened his mouth unto blasphemy 
against God, to blaspheme his name, and his 
tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven" 
(vv. 5, 6). This is fulfilled in popery by the 
blasphemous claims of the pope, who claims 
various prerogatives of God. These we have 
already considered. 

"And it was given unto him to make war with 
the saints, and to overcome them. And power was 
given him over every tribe, and people, and 
tongue, and nation. And all that dwelt upon the 
earth adored him, whose names are not written in 
the book of life of the Lamb, which,was slain from 
the beginning of the world" (Rev. 13:7, 8). 
This was fulfilled in the great persecutions of 
the Christians under the reign of popery. Papal 
Rome glutted herself on the blood that heathen 
Rome only tasted. It is hardly necessary to 
refer to the bloody reign of the Dark Ages, for 
nearly all are well acquainted with the facts. 
I would simply refer the reader to such histories 
as Fox's Book of Martyrs, Christian Heroes 
and Martyrs, Martyr's Mirror, etc. All peo- 
ple worshiped popery except those whose names 
were in the book of life. These latter were the 
ones who suffered martyrdom at her cruel hands. 



TJie Papacy in Revelation 171 

In Rev. 13: 10 we read: "He that shall lead 
into captivity, shall go into captivity: he that 
shall kill by the sword, must be killed by the 
sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the 
saints." Ah! the patience and faith of the 
saints during that long, bloody night of papal 
darkness, was the assurance that the very beast- 
power which was leading them into captivity and 
killing them with the sword would sometime it- 
self go into captivity and suffer death from the 
sword. Thank God, their prayers were an- 
swered and their hopes realized. In the six- 
teenth century, God began to raise up reform- 
ers, such as Zwingli, Melanchthon, and Luther, 
who hurled the awful thunderbolts of heaven 
against the beast-power of popery. Truth, so 
long crushed, began to arise and triumph in the 
earth. The Reformation spread rapidly in every 
direction: watch-fires were kindled throughout 
all Germany and almost all Europe, and thou- 
sands threw off the galling yoke of popery and 
came out into clearer light. God's kingdom, 
which was to conquer every opposing power, 
conquered popery. 

The Reformation spread so rapidly and its 
power became so great that it cast its influence 
upon the rulers and kings of nations, who turned 
Protestant. The very rulers and kings that had 



172 Roman CatJiolicism 

so long upheld Catholicism now turned against 
her and gave their support to Protestantism. 
The sword was turned against the beast. There 
were thirty years of bloody war in Germany. 
The universal supremacy of the papal power 
was broken. That beast which had ruled the 
earth for 1260 long years was left bleeding 
and wounded, and it has been growing weaker 
ever since. It has now been entirely sheared 
of its temporal power. Thus the prayers of 
those millions who were slain during its long 
reign were answered; and the words of God in 
Rev. 17:16 were fulfilled, where he says that 
the very kings and rulers who supported the 
great harlot "shall hate the harlot, and shall 
make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her 
flesh, and shall burn her with fire." 



BABYLON THE GREAT 

As we have seen, the true primitive Church 
of God is brought to view in Revelation 12 
under the symbol of a pure woman. After this 
the woman fled into the wilderness, or desert. 
Next, John was carried away in spirit "into the 
desert" (Rev. 17:3). What did he now see.? 

"And there came one of the seven angels, 
who had the seven vials, and spoke with me, 



Babylon the Great 173 

saying : Come, I will show thee the condemnation 
of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many 
waters, with whom the kings of the earth have 
committed fornication; and they who inhabit 
the earth, have been made drunk with the wine 
of her whoredom. And he took me away in 
spirit into the desert. And I saw a woman sit 
upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of 
blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 
And the woman was clothed round about with 
purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and 
precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup 
in her hand, full of the abominations and filthi- 
ness of her fornication. And on her forehead 
a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the 
great, the mother of the fornications and the 
abominations of the earth. And I saw the 
woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and 
with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I 
wondered, when I had seen her, with great ad- 
miration" (Rev. 17:1-6). 

Oh, how changed! What a contrast! In- 
stead of a pure woman, that chaste virgin, he 
now beholds a woman "with whom the kings of 
the earth have committed fornication ; and they 
who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk 
with the wine of her whoredom." She holds a 
cup full of the "filthiness of her fornication." 



174 Roman Catholicism 

This woman is "drunk with the blood of the 
saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of 
Jesus." No wonder John wondered with great 
admiration ! Before the apostasy she stood upon 
the moon — the Word of God (12: 1) ; now she 
sits "upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names 
of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten 
horns." Ah, beloved reader, this woman rep- 
resents the apostate church. She is the Catholic 
church. The beast that carried her is imperial 
Rome under the popes and bishops. This is 
made clear by the angel's interpretation of this 
marvelous vision. 

"And the angel said to me: Why dost thou 
wonder.'^ I will tell thee the mystery of the 
woman, and of the beast which carrieth her, 
which hath the seven heads and ten horns. The 
beast, which thou sawest, was, and is not, and 
shall come up out of the bottomless pit, and go 
into destruction: and the inhabitants on the 
earth (whose names are not written in the book 
of life from the foundation of the world) shall 
wonder, seeing the beast that was, and is not. 
And here is the understanding that hath wis- 
dom. The seven heads are seven mountains, 
upon which the woman sitteth, and there are 
seven kings: Five are fallen, one is, and the 
other is not yet come: and when he is come, he 



Babylon the Great 175 

must remain a short time. And the beast which 
was, and is not : the same also is the eighth, and 
is of the seven, and goeth into destruction. And 
the ten horns which thou sawest, are ten kings, 
who have not yet received a kingdom, but shall 
receive power as kings one hour after the beast. 
These have one design: and their strength and 
power they shall deliver to the beast. These 
shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall 
overcome them, because he is Lord of lords, and 
King of kings, and they that are with him are 
called, and elect, and faithful. And he said to 
me: The waters which thou sawest, where the 
harlot sitteth, are peoples, and nations, and 
tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest 
in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and 
shall make her desolate and naked, and shall 
eat her flesh, and shall bum her with fire. For 
God hath given into their hearts to do that 
which pleaseth him; that they give their king- 
dom to the beast, till the words of God be ful- 
filled. And the woman which thou sawest, is 
the great city, which hath kingdom over the 
kings of the earth" (Rev. 17:7-18). 

Here is a full explanation of the mystery. 
"The seven heads are seven mountains, upon 
which the woman sitteth." This no doubt refers 
to the city of Rome, built upon seven hiUs, or 



176 Roman Cafholicism 

mountains. Rome was the seat of both the 
pagan and the papel governments, and on her 
sat this woman and ruled, or reigned, over the 
kings of the earth. Thus she sat on seven 
mountains. But the seven heads have another 
signification. "And they are seven kings." 
These refer to the seven supreme forms of 
government which the Roman empire had: (1) 
the regal, (2) the dictatorial, (3) the decem- 
viral, (4) the consular, (5) the triumviral, (6) 
the imperial, and (7) the patrician. These 
were the ruling powers of the empire. The 
angel thus informed John: "Five are fallen, 
one is, and the other is not yet come : and when 
he is come, he must remain a short time." That 
is, at the time John received this vision, the 
first five had already fallen. "One is." The form 
of government ruling the empire in John's time 
was the imperial, the sixth head of Rome. The 
rulers were the heathen Caesars. The other "not 
yet come" was the patrician, which had not yet 
developed at John's time. It was to continue 
but "a short time." Adam Clark says that the 
time during which the patriciate ruled the em- 
pire was limited to forty-five years. Some 
authorities say fifty-one years ; others twenty- 
six. This was a short period compared with the 



Babylon the Great 177 

duration of several of the preceding forms of 
government. 

Next the angel interprets the beast upon 
which the woman sat: "The beast, which thou 
sawest, was, and is not. . . . And the beast 
which was, and is not: the same also is the 
eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into de- 
struction." This beast upon which the woman 
sat is the eighth head of Rome, and yet it was 
one of the seven. This beast was popery, which 
was the eighth and last head of Rome. It is 
the same secular beast as seen in Rev. 13: 1-11. 
"But," says one, "how was it one of the original 
seven.?" Let us see. The sixth head of the 
empire was the imperial under the heathen 
Caesars. This imperial power was the persecut- 
ing power of Rome against the early Chris- 
tians. Imperial Rome ruled the world. Thus 
"it was." But the time came when the hordes 
of savages from the North swept the empire and 
wounded the imperial head to death. The im- 
perial government was overthrown, therefore 
"it was not." Later, as we have shown, the 
patriciate ruled the empire for a short time, 
being succeeded by New Rome, the imperial 
power revived under a cloak of Christianity. 
The same power that ruled under the Caesars in 
heathen garb, though wounded to death for a 



178 Eomam Catholicism 

time, revided and ruled under the priests and 
popes in Christian garb. But it was the same 
persecuting power. 

An apostate church, whose history can be 
clearly traced from about A. D. 270, grew up 
by degrees, and this apostate institution is what 
the woman, the great whore, represented. When 
the old persecuting imperial power revived, it 
gave its strength to this apostate institution 
under the popes and priests. It became the 
power that carried this apostate church. Thus 
the woman is represented as sitting upon this 
scarlet-colored beast. This beast was imperial 
Rome under popes and priests, but was virtually 
the same as heathen imperial Rome. This makes 
clear why, in symbol, the same horns of imperial 
Rome under pagan rule served later as the horns 
of papal Rome. It was the same power, but 
clothed differently. These ten horns, as al- 
ready noted in this chapter, signify the ten 
divided kingdoms of Rome. These were to give 
**their strength and power to the beast." Thus 
they became his horns. The time was to come 
when these kings would 'hate the whore, make 
her desolate and naked, eat her flesh, and burn 
her with fire.' This no doubt was fulfilled when 
the very nations that had once supported po- 
pery turned against her and sheared her of all 



TTie Call to Leave Babylon 179 

temporal power. Among others, England and 
Germany effected this, and became the horns, or 
powers, which supported Protestantism. 

This beast ascended "out of the bottomless 
pit" — was of hellish origin. Such is the whole 
system of popery. It emanated from hell, and 
shall "go into destruction." This very beast 
will finally be "cast alive into the pool of fire, 
burning with brimstone" (Rev. 19: 20). 

"And the woman which thou sawest, is the 
great city, which hath kingdom over the kings 
of the earth" (Rev. 17: 18). This is Babylon 
the Great, the Roman Catholic sect. She is the 
great whore. She is guilty of "the blood of the 
saints, and of the martyrs of Jesus." History 
shows that she glutted herself with the blood of 
nearly fifty million saints. The bride of Christ 
was clothed with the sun ; she wore the robes of 
righteousness. But this woman "was clothed 
round about with purple and scarlet." This 
apostate woman Christ never acknowledged as 
his bride. 



THE CALL TO LEAVE BABYLON 

We have seen that "Babylon the great" of 
Revelation 17 consists of a family, a mother and 
her harlot daughters. The mother is the Church 



180 Roman Catholicism 

of Rome, while the daughters are in particular 
the Protestant sects. This fraternity of so- 
called churches, from Rome down to the latest 
born daughter, does not represent the pure 
bride, "the Lamb's wife." Of his bride the 
Lord said, "Thou art all fair, O my love, and 
there is not a spot in thee." "One is my dove, 
my perfect one is but one." "And it is granted 
to her that she should clothe herself with fine 
linen, glittering and white. For the fine linen 
are the justifications of saints." "That I may 
present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." God 
has but one family, his household. Since no 
man can rightly have two families, God has but 
one church, which is the holy family. 

Ignorantly many honest souls, as well as true 
children of God, have been led to join these 
apostate institutions. We do not doubt that 
the Church of Rome holds within her fold many 
sincere and honest people whose hearts are 
longing for better things. We have a warm 
and tender feeling for these dear people. It 
is not them that we antagonize, but the apos- 
tate, corrupt religion and teaching that is des- 
troying their souls. 

"And another angel followed, saying: That 
great Babylon is fallen, is fallen ; which made all 
nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her 



The Call to Leave Babylon 181 

fornication. And the third angel followed them, 
saying with a loud voice: If any man shall 
adore the beast and his image, and receive his 
character in his forehead, or in his hand; he 
also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, 
. . . neither have they rest day nor night, 
who have adored the beast, and his image, and 
whosoever receiveth the character of his name" 
(Rev. 14:8-11). "And after these things, I 
saw another angel come down from heaven, hav- 
ing great power : and the earth was enlightened 
with his glory. And he cried out with a strong 
voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is 
fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, 
and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the 
hold of every unclean and hateful bird. Because 
all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath 
of her fornication; and the kings of the earth 
have committed fornication with her; and the 
merchants of the earth have been made rich by 
the power of her delicacies" (Rev. 18:1-3). 
This language is similar to that of Rev. 17 : 2-5. 
Practically the same things that are said of the 
woman of Revelation 17 are here said of the 
great Babylon which is the habitation of devils. 
"And I heard another voice from heaven, say- 
ing: Go out from her, my people; that you 
be not partakers of her sins, and that you re- 



182 Roman CatJioUcism 

ceive not of her plagues. For her sins have 
reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath re- 
membered her iniquities" (Rev. 18:4, 5). A 
further description of her fall will be found 
by reading Rev. 18:8-19. 

All this is present truth. Thfe angel in these 
texts stands for the entire ministry of the pres- 
ent time. These flying messengers are God's 
holy ministers, who are trumpeting to all na- 
tions the solemn warnings from heaven. This 
is a time of the Lord's vengeance against all 
false religions of earth. He has set his hand 
to gather out his people, and to prepare his 
church, so that she may be presented holy, with- 
out spot or wrinkle, when he comes. A solemn 
voice from heaven says, "Go out from her." 

Dear reader, for the good of your soul, obey 
this solemn injunction from the Almighty. Tens 
of thousands have already done so, and are abid- 
ing in Christ alone, in his true church — the Zion 
of God. Have a part in this great gathering, 
which is the preparation of the bride for the 
coming of the Bridegroom. 

The End. 



BOMAN CATHOLICISM IN THE LIGHT OF 

HER OWN SCRIPTUEES AND HISTORY 

By H. M. Riggle 

A treatise contrasting the Church of God and 
the Eoman Catholic Church. The line of demarc- 
ation between the true and the false is clearly 
and unmistakably drawn. 

For many centuries the Roman Catholic 
Church has denominated herself the Only True 
and Infallible Church. The fact that the Rom- 
ish Church existed prior to Protestantism has 
deluded many souls and caused them to believe 
it to have been the apostolic church. 

The Romish Church is Not Apostolic 

The author emphasizes the fact that the Rom- 
ish Church did not spring into existence until 
the third century, as one of the evidences that 
she is not the church that Christ founded during 
his earthly ministry. 

In Roman Catholicism in the Light of Her 
Own Scriptures and Histories the author clearly 
proves the falsity of the Romish claims to apos- 
tolicity and infallibility. He gives all quota- 
tions from the Rheims and Douay versions of 
the Bible and quotes extensively from their 
Councils and Ecclesiastical Histories. Where 
the difference in the rendition of scripture shows 
a marked difference, the Authorized version is 
quoted in connection. This book fills a I'ong- 
felt want and should be owned and read by both 
Christian and non-Christian. Cloth, $1.00. 

GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY, 
Anderson, Indiana, XT. S. A. 



BIBLE BEADINGS For Bible Students and For 

the Home and Fireside 

By S. L. Speck and H. M. Biggie 

Convenient Arrangement of Scriptural Texts 




How frequently the 
Bible reader wishes 
to find a line of scrip- 
tures on some special 
subject, but is puz- 
zled as to where he 
can find just what he 
desires. To have at 
hand a convenient ar- 
rangement of Scrip- 
tural texts classified 
under their proper 
headings will help in 
getting a better grasp 
of the Bible and of 
the Faith once deliv- 
ered to the saints. 

Two Hundred Eighty-two Interesting Subjects 

This interesting book gives many thousands of 
Scriptural references under two hundred eighty- 
two interesting subjects. A complete topical in- 
dex enables one to readily find the subject de- 
sired. One who has never made use of such a 
book can hardly realize its value in Bible study. 
Becommended to Pastors, Teachers, and Young 
People 

This work is recommended to pastors, teach- 
ers, and young people and all who desire to bet- 
ter acquaint themselves with the Word of God. 
The supply of this book is limited. It will not 
be reprinted. Cloth, Net, 60 cents. 

GOSPEL TBUMPET COMPANY, 
Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. 



CHBIST'S KINGDOM AND BEIGN 
By H. M. Biggie 

The kingdom of Christ and his reign have been 
a subject of controversy for centuries. The 
heresies that have arisen as a result of a mis- 
interpretation of Scripture have been, and still 
are, multitudinous. For this reason it has be- 
come necessary that persons making a study of 
Bible themes be very cautious in selecting books 
for study. 

Christ's Kingdom and Reign, by H. M. Biggie, 
is a new work and deals with the subject in a 
conclusive manner. This book is of vital inter- 
est and should be read by all. The following 
chapter titles will give a slight idea of its real 
work. 

Chapter Titles 

What Constitutes a Kingdom; *'The Kingdom 
of God'' and **The Kingdom of Heaven"; 
Christ's Kingdom Present; The Nature of 
Christ's Kingdom; The Kingdom of Grace; 
Christ's Kingdom Foretold by the Prophets; The 
Christian Dispensation; The Time Is Fulfilled; 
Christ on David's Throne; The Great Redemp- 
tive Reign; The Reign of God's Saints on Earth; 
Two Periods of Reigning Prophesied; The Thou- 
sand Years' Reign with Christ; Different Phases 
of the Kingdom Explained; The Lion and the 
Lamb Shall Feed Together; There Shall be No 
More Infant of Days; The Desert Shall Blossom 
as the Rose; The Nations Shall Learn War No 
More; The Binding and Loosing of the Dragon; 
When Shall the Earth be Full of the Knowledge 
of the Lord? Will There be Another Church? 
The Future Kingdom of Glory. Cloth, $1. 

GOSPEL TEUMPET COMPANY, 
Anderson, Indiana, XT. S. A. 




MAN, HIS PRESENT AND FUTURE 
By H. M. Biggie 

Questions concern- 

ing the state of man 
after death and after 
the resurrection are 
everywhere discussed 
by the thoughtful as 
well as by the care- 
less. Here is a book 
that will prove inter- 
esting and truly in- 
structive to those 
who are anxious to 
know what the Scrip- 
tures teach on these 
and kindred subjects. 
The doctrine on ma- 
terialism is consider- 
ed and proved to be wrong. A chapter is de- 
voted to Hades, the abode of spirits between 
the death of the body and the judgment. This 
book makes clear by the Word of God the 
Scriptural truth of final and everlasting punish- 
ment. 

Table of Contents 

Man; His Present State; Materialism; The 
Nature of Man in His Present State; The Hu- 
man Spirit in Union with an Animal Body; 
Death; Death a Separation; The State in Which 
Human Spirits Are Separated from Their An- 
imal Bodies; Confirming Words and Dying Tes- 
timonies; Hades: the World of Departed Spirits; 
Materialists' Arguments Considered; Conditional 
Immortality; The Kesurrection ; The General 
Judgment; The Eternal Home of the Eedeemed; 
The Final and Eternal Doom of the Wicked. 
206 pages. Oloth, 50 cents. 

GOSPEL TBUMPET COMPANY, 
Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. 



cg^CHRlSTlAN CHURCH 

Iti rue an<fj>rynjs 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH; Its Rise and 

Progress 
By H. M. Higgle 
A Timely, Stirring Book 
By the statement 
of Christ himself we 
are assured that he 
has founded a church 
against which the 
*' gates of hell shall 
not prevail. ' ' Just 
what this church is, 
the numerous figures 
under which it is de- 
scribed, and its many 
unchanging attributes 
are convincingly set 
forth. Four prin- 
cipal divisions or ages 
are treated: Morning Light, Papal Age, Prot- 
estant Age of Sects, Evening Time. 

Reveals the One Church 

The author shows the uselessness and error 
of mere external church organization and re- 
veals the one church, the Lamb's bride, in her 
glorious beauty, simplicity, and power. 

Read the book and lend it to others. 



^BNBIGGIX 



488 pages. 



Cloth bound. 



$1.00. 



GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPAlTy, 
Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. 



CHRIST'S TRIUMPHAL REIGN 
By H. M. Riggle 

A clear, forceful presentation of the truth 
relative to the reign of Christ. It refutes the 
idea that Christ will not reign until the sup- 
posed millennium of one thousand years, and 
clearly shows that he is now on David's throne, 
Christ is King during this present dispensation, 
and his reign is universal. He only is ' ' King of 
kings and Lord of lords." 

Distribute them widely among your neighbors 
and friends, and thus instruct them on this im- 
portant subject. 

30 pages. Paper cover. 
5 cents each; 40 cents a dozen; $3 a hundred. 



THE SABBATH 
By H. M. Riggle 

The subject is clearly and briefly set forth 
from both the Old and New Testament view- 
points. The teachings on this question prove 
that the Jewish Sabbath of the Mosaic dispensa- 
tion was done away in Christ, having its fulfil- 
ment in him. The Sabbath of the New Testa- 
ment is clearly explained. An excellent booklet 
for those in doubt regarding which day should 
be observed as *'unto the Lord." 
32 pages. 5 cents each. 40 cents a dozen. 

GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY, 
Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. 



OHEISTIAN BAPTISM, The Lord's Supper, and 

Feet-Washing 

By H. M. Eiggle 

The writer plain- 
ly shows by Scrip- 
ture and other re- 
liable evidence 
that baptism by 
immersion is the 
only method prac- 
tised in the early 
Christian church. 
The truth concern- 
i n g the Lord 's 
Supper and feet- 
washing is given 
in a comprehen- 
sive and convinc- 
ing manner. 
Part I. Baptism 

Scriptural Testi- 
mony and Exam- 
ples of Immersion; 
Sprinkling Not 
Baptism ; The 
Voice of History — 
Infant Baptism; Proper Candidates for Baptism; 
The Design of Baptism; Born of Water and of 
the Spirit; John's Baptism. 

Part II. The Lord's Supper 

What Constitutes the Lord's Supper? Did 
Christ and His Disciples Eat the Passover? 
When Was the Lord's Supper Instituted? What 
It Teaches; Who Are Worthy? 

Part III. Feet- Washing 

Feet-washing Commanded; Christ Instituted 
It; Time and Place of Its Institution; To Be Ob- 
served in Public Assembly of Saints; The Ee- 
ligious Aspect of Feet-washing; Delivered to 
the Churches by the Apostles; Historic Proof. 
Cloth, 50 cents. 




PRIMITIVE CHURCH GOVERNMENT 
By H. M. Riggle 

This booklet shows the kind of government 
under which the early Christian church existed. 
It thoroughly explains the terms ^ ' elder, " " evan- 
gelist," ''apostle," ''pastor," "teacher," 
"bishop," and "deacon," from the Scriptural 
usages of the words. These are but a few of 
the interesting explanations given. Extracts 
from the Bible as well as from History, are used 
to explain and substantiate the statements. Noth- 
ing is left to be disputed because of a lack of 
proof. 
56 pages. 5 cents each. 40 cents a dozen. 



HELL AND EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT 
By H. M. Riggle 
It is surprizing how many believe the teach- 
ings of those who seek to overthrow the doc- 
trine of everlasting punishment. When a man is 
thoroughly convinced that he will simply be 
blotted out of existence and thus be freed from 
the sense of eternal misery, he will in many 
cases, prefer a life spent in sinful pleasure to a 
life spent in humble Christian service. When a 
man is deceived on one subject, he may become 
a prey to other false spirits and be more easily 
deceived on other subjects. This booklet gives 
Bible teachings concerning hell; it shows that 
the wicked will be punished, not simply anni-* 
hilated. Books are among the necessities of life 
— true, deep spiritual life. To attain to the 
heights God has designed, it is essential that 
one read the books that will help him better 
understand the fundamental doctrines of the 
Bible. 

64 pages. Paper, 10 cents. 

GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY, 

Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. 



THE SABBATH AND THE LORD'S DAY 
By H. M. Biggie 

The origin of the Old Testament Sabbath 
(seventh day) observance is clearly shown. The 
different chapters tell when the Sabbath was first 
enjoined upon man; that it was of a ceremonial 
nature — a type of spiritual rest in Christ — and 
was abolished by his coming. It also shows 
that the Jewish Sabbath was not commanded to 
be observed in the Christian dispensation. 

For Seventh Day Observers 

The book is designed to convince seventh-day 
observers of the fallacy of their position. *'The 
Sabbath and the Lord's Day" contains teaching 
on a subject greatly misunderstood. Everybody 
should get a copy and read it. 

Illustrated. 238 pages. 
Paper, 25 cents. Cloth, 50 cents. 

GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY, 
Anderson, Indiana, TJ. S. A. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



